Civil Actions - Violation of Constitutional Rights (No Kings Act)
HB0332, titled the Elder Fraud Prevention Act of 2025, would require the Maryland Commissioner of Financial Regulation to adopt consumer protection regulations for domestic electronic funds transfers initiated by financial institutions operating in the state. The bill is aimed at ensuring that consumers receive protections consistent with those available under the federal Electronic Fund Transfer Act, even where federal exemptions might otherwise limit coverage. It also states that consumer wire transfers involving electronic fund transfers made ancillary to bank-to-bank wire service transfers are subject to the federal Electronic Fund Transfer Act.
The bill is framed as a consumer protection measure focused on electronic payments and transfers, with an emphasis on preventing fraud affecting older adults and other consumers who use digital transfer services. It applies broadly to financial institutions operating in Maryland and directs the state regulator to create rules that align state protections with federal standards. The bill takes effect October 1, 2025, and includes a severability-style provision that would void the act if it cannot apply to federally chartered or out-of-state chartered institutions.
HB0332 would add a new section to Maryland’s Commercial Law Article governing electronic funds transfers, expanding the Commissioner of Financial Regulation’s authority to issue consumer protection regulations for domestic transfers. It would affect financial institutions operating in Maryland by subjecting certain transfer activity to state regulatory standards designed to mirror federal consumer protections under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. The bill could also influence how wire transfers ancillary to bank-to-bank transfers are treated under state law, potentially broadening consumer remedies and compliance obligations for covered institutions.
The available legislative history suggests the bill moved forward without recorded floor debate or vote detail in the provided materials, and it received a favorable committee report with amendments before House adoption. Overall, the bill appears to have been treated as a consumer protection measure with broad policy appeal, particularly because it targets fraud prevention and aligns state protections with existing federal law. No opposing testimony or recorded controversy is included in the provided context.
The main legal issue embedded in the bill is its reach over different categories of financial institutions, including federally chartered institutions and institutions chartered outside Maryland. Section 2 anticipates a possible court ruling that the act cannot be applied to those entities and provides that the act would be abrogated if that occurs, indicating concern about preemption or jurisdictional limits. Another point of potential contention is the bill’s effort to extend consumer protections to transfers that may fall within federal exemptions, which could raise compliance and scope questions for banks, credit unions, and wire transfer providers.