Committee backs bill letting customers sue banks over denial of services tied to political or social criteria

The committee voted to report a committee substitute for Senate Bill 663 to the full Senate after debate over how the measure would operate and its potential legal effects.

The bill would add a new article to the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act prohibiting financial institutions with at least $100 billion in total assets from refusing or conditioning financial services based on certain "discriminatory factors," including a customer’s exercise of constitutionally protected speech (for example, refusing to assist with an employee obtaining an abortion or a gender transition service), a refusal to adopt greenhouse‑gas targets beyond state or federal law, or a refusal to conduct racial‑or‑gender audits or quotas. The statute would allow a person to demand a written explanation within 30 days; if the person prevails in court they could recover actual damages or $10,000 per violation (whichever is greater), plus attorney fees and costs. The attorney general would have investigatory authority; if a claim is frivolous and clear and convincing evidence supports that, the bank could recover fees.

Brian Robert Knight, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom and a former research fellow at Mercatus, told the committee the bill "does not require any bank to do business with anybody" and said the measure was intended to address what sponsors called the use of financial power to regulate outside normal democratic channels. Committee counsel and members discussed threshold questions including which institutions would meet the $100 billion asset test (several large national banks and payment processors would fall within that threshold) and whether plaintiffs must show a West Virginia nexus to bring suit. Counsel said the bill as drafted did not set a state‑nexus requirement; witnesses and senators discussed jurisdictional and preemption concerns.

After discussion the committee approved the committee substitute and moved to report it to the full Senate with a recommendation that it pass. Committee members conducted a division vote; the clerk recorded 11 in favor and 4 opposed. The committee chair declared the motion adopted and ordered the measure reported.