Maine Senate Bill LD142

Maine 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/14/25
• Refer: 1/14/25
• Engrossed: 5/20/25
• Enrolled: 5/22/25
• Passed: 5/27/25

Caption

Resolve, Directing the Bureau of Financial Institutions to Issue Guidance Related to the Charging of Multiple Fees for Attempted Withdrawals Involving Insufficient Funds

Summary

LD 142 is a resolve directing the Maine Bureau of Financial Institutions to issue written guidance to state-chartered financial institutions and credit unions on the charging of multiple fees for attempted withdrawals that are rejected because of insufficient funds. The guidance must be issued by 2026 and is intended to address situations where a consumer may be charged more than once for repeated attempts to complete the same transaction when the account lacks sufficient funds. Before issuing the guidance, the bureau must review relevant guidance from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the National Credit Union Administration and consult with statewide associations representing state-chartered banks and credit unions. The bill does not itself prohibit or mandate specific fee practices; instead, it requires the bureau to develop interpretive guidance for the industry.

Impact

The resolve affects the Department of Professional and Financial Regulation, Bureau of Financial Institutions, by requiring it to produce guidance on overdraft and insufficient-funds fee practices for state-chartered financial institutions and credit unions. It may influence how banks and credit unions in Maine handle repeated declined withdrawal attempts and related consumer fees, but it does not directly amend the Maine Revised Statutes or create a new enforcement regime. Its practical impact is to shape regulatory expectations and industry practices through agency guidance informed by federal standards and stakeholder consultation.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests the bill was generally well received, with the House/Senate action reflected in a strong majority report acceptance vote of 28-4. The absence of committee transcript excerpts limits insight into detailed debate, but the broad support indicates a favorable view of clarifying fee practices for consumers and financial institutions. The bill was enacted and approved by the Governor, further suggesting consensus around the need for guidance rather than direct regulation.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is the treatment of multiple fees for repeated failed withdrawal attempts, which can be viewed as a consumer protection issue by those concerned about unfair or duplicative charges, and as an operational or revenue issue by financial institutions. The bill addresses this tension by requiring guidance rather than imposing an outright ban or specific fee cap. Any disagreement likely centered on how prescriptive the state should be and whether the bureau should defer to federal guidance and industry consultation.