Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah House debates payday-lending bill that would allow partial payments and a 24-hour rescission
Summary
Lawmakers debated HB 166, a sponsor-backed bill that would require payday lenders to accept partial payments, allow borrowers a one-business-day rescission, prohibit criminal-collection threats, and codify annual examinations by the Department of Financial Institutions. Sponsors urged action after citing APRs above 500%.
Representative Ty McCartney presented House Bill 166 on the House floor, saying the bill codifies common business practices while adding consumer protections for deferred-deposit (payday) loans. McCartney listed four principal provisions: allow partial payments without extra charges; permit a borrower to rescind the loan by returning the deferred-deposit amount by 5 p.m. the next business day; bar check-cashers from threatening or using criminal process to collect such loans; and require annual premises examinations by the Department of Financial Institutions.
"I'm gonna quickly go over the 4 provisions that this bill contains," McCartney said, outlining the partial-payment and rescission provisions. He described the measure as industry-supported and framed it as a way to "clean up the image" of payday lenders while protecting consumers.
Several members supported the bill on the floor. Representative Pace described a constituent case of severe debt and said, "It was unbelievable to me the amount of interest," urging support to prevent predatory cycles of debt. Another member recounted a court example where a $400 loan had grown to more than $4,000 owing to interest rates described on the floor as roughly 547–564 percent.
Supporters said the bill preserves a contractual industry while adding specific consumer safeguards and oversight. Opponents raised concerns about whether the bill went far enough to curb abusive interest or whether additional enforcement mechanisms were needed; floor debate focused on consumer harms and future legislative options.
The transcript records the bill’s presentation, debate, and that it was placed for further consideration, but a final House vote or tally for HB 166 is not recorded in the provided transcript excerpt. The bill was described on the floor as industry-backed but also advocated by several members as a needed consumer-protection step.
Next steps: HB 166 was discussed on the floor and considered for action; the transcript does not include a final disposition or recorded final vote in the provided span.
