Representative Jason Doctor introduced House Bill 1393, saying the measure would establish a licensing and regulatory framework for earned‑wage access (EWA) providers and create a statewide transaction database to prevent consumer overextension.

Why it matters: EWA services let workers access wages they have already earned before payday. Supporters told the committee that online EWA products operate outside the state’s existing payday loan reporting system and that a transaction database and licensing are necessary to prevent consumers from taking multiple advances across platforms against the same paycheck.

Support and concerns: Bill Klinek (presenting on behalf of industry groups) told the committee HB1393 would “prevent consumers from overextending earned wage access advances” by requiring providers to submit every transaction to a statewide database. He cited California research showing heavy use in some cases and said a database would be transaction‑driven, not credit reporting, limiting advances a borrower could take at a given moment.

Pawnshop owner Jay Couture, representing the North Dakota Pawnbrokers Association, said earned‑wage access “is a payday loan by any other name” and said a state database and licensing would protect both community lenders and consumers from repeated borrowing across platforms.

Industry opposition: DailyPay, a major EWA vendor, urged the committee not to adopt the bill as written. Andrew Welch, government relations manager for DailyPay, said the company partners with more than 200 North Dakota employers and that users can access only wages already earned — not loans — and that DailyPay charges no interest and typically imposes a flat optional instant transfer fee (DailyPay cited $3.49 for immediate delivery; a standard no‑cost option takes 1–3 business days). Welch and other EWA witnesses told the committee the bill’s proposed $1,000 per‑consumer cap, a 10% per‑transaction fee cap, a three‑day frequency limit and the required APR disclosures are not supported by evidence and could push consumers to higher‑cost alternatives.

DailyPay executive Ryan Naples summarized independent research the company provided showing high‑frequency use tends to decline substantially over weeks among users; company witnesses said EWA products offer a low‑cost alternative to overdrafts or payday loans and that rigid transaction caps would diminish that consumer benefit.

Regulatory and fiscal notes: Corey Krebs, Assistant Commissioner at the Department of Financial Institutions, described approaches other states have taken — treating EWA as a consumer loan in some cases, or requiring disclosures in others — and said the bill as drafted would require a new licensing and oversight program. The department’s fiscal estimate anticipates roughly 16 companies in scope, a need for one full‑time examiner and program support (estimated biennial personnel cost roughly $278,000) and a transaction database cost borne through the regulated industry (the payday‑lender database was cited at ~$3 per transaction as a point of comparison).

Committee response: The committee heard extensive in‑person and remote testimony from providers, industry groups, pawnshops and the regulator, and members asked department and industry representatives to work with the sponsor on amendments. Vice Chair Ausley agreed to help convene off‑line work; the committee closed the hearing and held the bill for additional committee work rather than advancing it.

What to watch: whether the sponsor and the Department of Financial Institutions agree on a narrower scope or carve‑outs for employer‑integrated, low‑fee products; whether the committee adopts a narrower disclosure or registration scheme rather than the broad fee and frequency caps in the draft.