Limits payment transaction fees for certain convenience payments
Summary
HB 1210 would add a new section to Missouri law authorizing debt collectors, including debt collection attorneys and law firms, to charge a payment transaction fee when a person or business pays a debt by credit card or electronic payment. The fee could not exceed the lesser of $25 or 3% of the payment amount, not counting the fee itself. The bill applies only if the fee is disclosed before the transaction is completed.
To comply, the collector must tell the payor that a payment transaction fee will be charged, disclose the amount or how it is calculated, and provide at least one alternative payment method that does not include a fee. The bill also includes a sample notice that collectors could use to satisfy the disclosure requirement.
Impact
The bill would create a new statutory authorization in Chapter 425, RSMo, for debt collectors and related legal representatives to impose limited convenience fees on credit card and electronic payments. It would affect debt collection practices, payment processing for consumer and business debts, and the disclosure obligations of collectors offering fee-based payment options. By setting a cap and requiring a no-fee alternative, the bill would regulate how such fees may be charged rather than broadly prohibiting them.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be a narrow, technical proposal with no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials. The caption suggests the bill is intended to clarify and limit payment transaction fees for certain convenience payments, indicating a generally practical or administrative purpose rather than a highly ideological one. Because there are no transcripts or votes, no clear support or opposition can be inferred from the available record.
Contention
The main policy issue is whether debt collectors should be allowed to pass along credit card or electronic payment processing costs to payors, and if so, how much they may charge. Potential concerns would likely come from consumers or debtor advocates worried about added costs, while debt collection businesses and attorneys may favor the bill as a way to recover processing expenses. The bill addresses that tension by capping the fee and requiring advance disclosure plus a fee-free alternative.