Florida Lawmakers Could Change Payday-Loan Industry Rules
Florida lawmakers have started moving forward with a proposal to revamp rules for the payday-loan industry, allowing customers to borrow larger amounts of money over longer periods of time.
January 19, 2018 at 02:37 PM
4 minute read
Florida lawmakers have started moving forward with a proposal to revamp rules for the payday-loan industry, allowing customers to borrow larger amounts of money over longer periods of time.
The House Insurance and Banking Subcommittee unanimously approved the changes Wednesday, a day after a Senate committee backed the Senate version. The proposal, in part, would allow a new type of “installment” loan that could reach $1,000 and be repaid over 60 to 90 days.
Supporters say the changes are needed, at least in part, because of federal regulations slated to take effect in 2019 on the types of smaller-dollar, shorter-term loans made by payday lenders in Florida, though a federal agency said last week it will reconsider the regulations. Consumer groups such as the AARP and Florida Legal Services, however, oppose the proposed legislation.
The House bill drew lengthy debate Wednesday, with lawmakers saying payday loans play an important role for many low-income people who might not have good credit and get hit with unexpected expenses.
“These products are necessary in some of our districts, and these products help people get from payday to payday,” Rep. Sean Shaw, a Democrat who said he represents the most economically depressed area of Tampa. “Yes, it's not ideal. There are people whose budget requires this sort of product.”
But Alice Vickers, an attorney for the nonprofit Florida Alliance for Consumer Protection, described high-cost payday loans as a “debt trap” that people turn to when they want money fast, possibly without understanding the ultimate amounts they will repay.
“I think that people frequently go to payday loans because they can get the loans in 10 minutes, and the main problem with that is they don't determine the ability to repay,” Vickers said.
Under current state law, borrowers can get payday loans up to $500 for periods of seven to 31 days, according to a House staff analysis. In repaying the loans, borrowers face charges up to 10 percent of the loan amounts and $5 “verification” fees. Generally, the transactions involve borrowers post-dating checks that the lenders hold for periods until they can be repaid.
The federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau last year finalized regulations that include requiring payday lenders to determine the ability of borrowers to repay such short-term loans, the House analysis said. Those regulations are slated to take effect in August 2019.
The proposed state legislation, backed by payday lenders such as Amscot Financial Inc. and Advance America, would provide an avenue to make loans that would not fall under the regulations. The proposed “installment” loans would be required to have terms of 60 to 90 days, with maximum amounts of $1,000. Borrowers would pay fees up to 8 percent of the outstanding balances on a biweekly basis.
The future of the federal regulations became murky last week because the CFPB said it will begin a process to “reconsider” the regulations. The move came after Mick Mulvaney, the budget director for President Donald Trump, was named to lead the bureau. The bureau moved forward with the regulations under Richard Cordray, an appointee of former President Barack Obama.
The federal reconsideration drew only passing discussion during Wednesday's House Insurance and Banking subcommittee meeting. As a sign of the stakes involved in the issue, Amscot has 11 registered legislative lobbyists, including former state lawmaker and Rep. Kendrick Meek.
The House bill is sponsored by Rep. James Grant, R-Tampa, and Minority Leader Janet Cruz, a Tampa Democrat who spoke about growing up with her divorced mother, who sometimes needed to go to businesses that offered similar types of short-term loans to help cover expenses.
“There are lots of teachers that get through the summer going to Amscot and grabbing $500 in the summer when they are not working,” Cruz said. “We talk about people and we talk about this predatory sort of lending, but where in the world do we go? Where do they go?”
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllU.S. Eleventh Circuit Remands Helms-Burton Trafficking Case Involving Confiscated Cuban Port
3 minute readMiami Lawyer Guilty of Indirect Criminal Contempt But Dodges Paying Legal Fees
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1$15K Family Vacation Turned 'Colossal Nightmare': Lawsuit Filed Against Vail Ski Resorts
- 2Prepare Your Entries! The California Legal Awards Have a New, February Deadline
- 3DOJ Files Antitrust Suit to Block Amex GBT's Acquisition of Competitor
- 4K&L Gates Sheds Space, but Will Stay in Flagship Pittsburgh Office After Lease Renewal
- 5US Soccer Monopoly Trial Set to Kick Off in Brooklyn Federal Court
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250