Bryan Steil (R-WI)
Earned Wage Access Consumer Protection Act
A Republican bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 690.
Cleared committee, waiting for its first floor vote
A committee approved it and it is on the calendar of the chamber it started in.
This is further than most bills get, and still no promise of a vote: the calendar is a queue, and the majority leadership decides what is called. A bill can sit here until the Congress ends.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- On Calendar
What this bill would do
This bill, known as the "Earned Wage Access Consumer Protection Act," seeks to regulate the business of offering and providing earned wage access services to consumers. It requires providers to offer a no-cost option for receiving earned wages and establishes strict disclosure requirements regarding fees, limits, and tips. The Act mandates that providers implement dispute processes and prohibits certain debt collection methods like civil suits or arbitration. It also prevents providers from charging late fees or sharing fee information with employers. Finally, the bill includes non-discrimination protections and consumer data protections for those using these services.
Yes· 3 of 20
- Scored +9
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Directly benefits those who need early wage access by mandating no-cost options and banning late fees.
- Scored +8
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
Establishes strict transparency and fee protections for consumers using earned wage access services.
- Scored +5
Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this?
Provides protections for early-career workers who may rely more on flexible wage access.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
Preempts state laws that treat these services as credit or loans if they comply with the Act.
- Scored -2
Would business owners be better off under this?
Increases regulatory burden on providers of wage access services.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Requirement for No-Cost Options: Providers must offer a way for consumers to obtain earned wages at no cost, ensuring access to funds without mandatory fees. (Section 2(a)(1))
-
Mandatory Disclosures: Providers are required to disclose limits on wage access, fee amounts, and how tips work before an agreement is made, allowing consumers to make informed decisions. (Section s2(a)(2)(A))
-
Protection Against Unfair Debt Collection: Providers are prohibited from using civil suits, arbitration, or debt collectors to seek payment for disbursed wages, except in cases of known false information. (Section 2(a)(6))
-
Financial Reimbursement for Errors: If a provider's attempt to seek payment triggers an overdraft or non-sufficient funds fee from a consumer's bank, the provider must reimburse the consumer. (Section 2(a)(7))
-
Prevention of Employer Interference: Providers are prohibited from sharing information about the fees or tips a consumer pays with their employer. (Section 2(a)(8)(A))
-
Non-Discrimination Protections: The bill makes it unlawful for providers to discriminate against consumers based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or age. (Section 2(a)(10))
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Requirement for Consumer Attestation: Before the first disbursement in a pay period, consumers must attest that they have not requested the same wages from another provider. (Section 2(a)(3))
-
Limits on Service Terms: Material changes to the terms and conditions of service require a 30-day notice period, which could delay the implementation of new service terms. (Section 2(a)(2)(E))
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Directly benefits those who need early wage access by mandating no-cost options and banning late fees. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Protects workers from predatory fees and aggressive collection practices. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Increases transparency and consumer protections for wage access services. Would students be better off under this? — Protects student workers from predatory fees associated with early wage access. Would union members be better off under this? — Provides stronger consumer protections for workers accessing their earned wages. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Provides protections for early-career workers who may rely more on flexible wage access. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Explicitly prohibits discrimination based on race and protects vulnerable populations from predatory fees. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Explicitly prohibits discrimination based on race and protects vulnerable populations from predatory fees. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Explicitly prohibits discrimination based on national origin and protects vulnerable populations from predatory fees. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Protects against discrimination based on national origin. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Explicitly prohibits discrimination based on race and protects vulnerable populations from predatory fees. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Provides general consumer protections and transparency for all users. Would women be better off under this? — Prohibits discrimination based on sex, pregnancy, and childbirth. Would business owners be better off under this? — Increases regulatory burden on providers of wage access services.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Establishes strict transparency and fee protections for consumers using earned wage access services.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Protects low-income users from predatory fees and aggressive debt collection for early wage access. Does this narrow the gap between how men and women are treated? — Prohibits discrimination based on sex, including pregnancy and childbirth. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Prohibits discrimination based on race and color in the provision of earned wage access services.
- Education And Technology
- Does this give people more control over their personal data? — Classifies providers as financial institutions under GLBA and prohibits sharing activity with credit agencies.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect people from being watched or searched? — Restricts the sharing of financial activity with credit reporting agencies. Does this give the federal government more power? — Establishes federal standards for earned wage access and preempts inconsistent state laws. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Preempts state laws that treat these services as credit or loans if they comply with the Act.
- 9/1/2026
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 119-790.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 690.
- 6/30/2026
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 29 - 22.
- 6/18/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.