Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Banking Fintech topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to allow internet consumer lenders to operate in Nevada without brick-and-mortar offices
Summary
Senate Bill 437 would create a new definition for “internet consumer lender,” exempt such lenders from Nevada’s brick-and-mortar requirement, require Nevada law to govern contracts to the extent permitted by federal law, and keep licensing and oversight under the Nevada Division of Financial Institutions.
The Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor heard Senate Bill 437 on May 1, 2025. The bill would update Nevada law to allow ‘‘internet consumer lenders’’ to issue consumer loans in Nevada without maintaining an in-state brick-and-mortar office while preserving state licensing and regulatory oversight.
Ben Kiekeffer of BRK Nevada, representing Upstart and Affirm, told the committee the bill “is an important change in our statutes to modernize Nevada's lending laws to expand access to credit for many Nevadans who are currently unbanked and underbanked.” He said the bill creates a statutory definition of “Internet consumer lender,” exempts such lenders from Nevada’s physical-presence requirement, and requires that loan contracts issued by internet consumer lenders be governed by Nevada law to the extent not preempted by federal law.
Jesse Wadhams, counsel for Upstart, said the bill removes what advocates described as an “archaic” brick-and-mortar requirement that uniquely burdened Nevada and does not eliminate licensing, supervision or consumer protections: “Ultimately, this bill does not remove any additional licensing requirements or loosen any regulations,” Wadhams said. Kiekeffer and Wadhams told the committee they worked with the Financial Institutions Division on the bill’s definitions and that the Division will retain licensing authority.
Assemblymember Cole questioned whether the draft’s wording uses the defined term “consumer credit” in NRS 604A.36 and whether the bill’s internal language should refer to that defined term rather than “consumer loans.” Kiekeffer said the bill’s definition was developed with the Financial Institutions Division and that he would follow up on the drafting detail.
Committee members confirmed on the record that internet lenders operating under the exemption would still need a license from the Division of Financial Institutions to issue loans under chapter 675 of the Nevada Revised Statutes. Support letters from the Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada appeared in the committee exhibits, and the presenters said they had collaborated with legal-aid representatives on the choice-of-law provision.
No callers registered support, opposition or neutral testimony during the remote portion of the hearing, and the committee closed the hearing without recording a vote.
