Earned Wage Access Consumer Protection Act

An app that charges for early pay would have to offer the same amount for free. The free transfer would have to start within one business day, and choosing it could not cost you access to the service.

If the app could not get its money back, it could not sue you, use arbitration, hire a collector, or sell what you owe. The one exception is if you lied to get the money.

Falling behind could not trigger interest, a late fee, or a charge for pushing the payment back. What you owe would stay what you took, plus the fee you agreed to.

If the app takes its money early, or takes a different amount than it told you, your bank may charge an overdraft fee. The app would have to pay that fee back.

Apps could still ask for a tip, but the box could not come filled in with an amount. Picking $0 could not trigger an extra screen asking you to confirm.

Before each advance, the app would have to check that the money is really yours. What you take now, plus what you already took this pay period, could not pass the wages you earned.

If you sign up for ongoing access, telling the app you want to stop would be enough. It could not charge a cancellation fee or any other penalty for leaving.

Truth in Lending makes lenders show what borrowing costs before you sign. The bill writes these advances out of that law, so you would not get a cost-of-credit figure for the fee you pay.

Some states treat pay advances as small loans and limit what they can cost. The bill would bar states from doing that to any app that follows its rules, though state fraud laws would still apply.

Many pay-advance apps reach workers through their employer. The bill would stop the app from handing any of your fees or tips back to your boss.

These apps would be covered by the same federal data-privacy law that banks follow. It requires them to tell you how your information is shared and to keep it safe.

An app could not turn you down, or treat you worse, based on race, color, faith, or where you were born. Sex, marital status, and age are covered too, and pregnancy counts as sex.

If your employer has a contract with the app, the app could tell your employer when you took an advance and how much. The bill sets that out as allowed.

These apps would fall under the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. That agency would have to write the rules within 180 days of the bill becoming law.

Before you agree, the app would have to spell out every fee it can charge, and any limits on how much or how often you can take money. It would also have to show how to get your money for free.

If you paid a fee or a tip that year, the app would have to keep two numbers in front of you. One is what you paid this pay period, the other what you paid so far this year.

An app could not suggest that your tip goes to a worker, a cause, or anyone but the company itself. It would also have to say plainly that a tip is optional.

States could not call these companies lenders, or keep rules that block or greatly burden a company following this law. State fraud, contract, property, and tax laws would still stand.

The bill says in plain terms that these services are not credit and the companies are not creditors. It also rewrites the Truth in Lending Act itself to say the same thing.