Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fair Lending Exams topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assemblymember Bonta proposes mandatory fair‑lending exams for mortgage lenders
Summary
Assemblymember Bonta introduced AB 801 to require the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation to conduct fair‑lending examinations of state‑chartered banks, credit unions and independent mortgage companies on a four‑year cycle, arguing the measure preserves California's disparate‑impact protections amid weakened federal enforcement; industry witnesses raised concerns about duplication and cost.
Assemblymember Bonta urged the Senate Banking and Financial Institutions Committee to advance AB 801, which would require the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) to examine state‑chartered banks, credit unions and independent mortgage companies for fair‑lending compliance at least once every four years.
"Federal enforcement has collapsed," Assemblymember Bonta said, arguing the state must preserve its disparate‑impact standard and ensure enforcement does not depend on federal priorities. He said AB 801 would not create new liability or impose ratings, but would create a mandatory structure to exercise existing DFPI authority.
Max Vargas, president and CEO of the Greenlining Institute, told the committee his organization’s analysis of mortgage applications shows persistent racial disparities. "This is continuing at the same time that the federal government is rapidly gutting fair‑lending enforcement," Vargas said, arguing California needs a state examination cycle "to ensure existing fair‑lending laws are actually examined and enforced."
Industry witnesses urged caution. Lindsay Gollenhorn of the California Community Banking Network said AB 801 could duplicate existing examinations and strain community banks’ limited compliance resources, and Rob Wilson of California Credit Unions warned the bill could be costly for not‑for‑profit cooperatives and raised confidentiality questions. "Examiners can and should be reviewing for potential fair‑lending concerns," Wilson said, and recommended tailoring the proposal to reduce duplication and cost.
Committee members praised the author’s outreach and amendments, and the bill was moved by motion for passage and referral to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee took an initial roll call while some members were absent and held the item "on call" pending a full complement; later in the hearing the committee completed roll calls and moved the bill out of committee for further consideration.
What happens next: AB 801 was moved out of the Banking and Financial Institutions Committee and referred to Judiciary for additional review, with committee members indicating intent to continue negotiating technical fixes and scoped amendments to limit burdens on smaller institutions.
