AN ACT TO AMEND SECTIONS 75-67-313 AND 75-67-413, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO PROVIDE THAT THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT THAT PAWNBROKERS AND TITLE PLEDGE LENDERS MAY CHARGE FOR THEIR SERVICES SHALL NOT EXCEED AN ANNUAL PERCENTAGE RATE OF 25% PER ANNUM ON THE AMOUNT OF THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT ADVANCED IN THE TRANSACTION THAT REMAINS UNPAID; TO AMEND SECTION 75-67-519, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO PROVIDE THAT THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT THAT CHECK CASHERS MAY CHARGE FOR CASHING A DELAYED DEPOSIT CHECK SHALL NOT EXCEED AN ANNUAL PERCENTAGE RATE OF 25% ON THE FACE AMOUNT OF THE CHECK; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
House Bill 761 would lower the maximum charges that Mississippi pawnbrokers, title pledge lenders, and delayed-deposit check cashers may impose by tying those charges to a 25% annual percentage rate. For pawnbrokers and title pledge lenders, the bill replaces the existing service-charge framework with a cap of 25% per annum on the unpaid principal advanced in the transaction. For delayed-deposit check cashing, it similarly limits fees to a 25% APR on the face amount of the check, while preserving the existing structure for short-term check-cashing transactions and the requirement that fees be disclosed in writing.
The bill also adds or clarifies several consumer-protection and transaction rules. Pawnbrokers would be allowed to pass through third-party debit or credit card processing fees, but only with clear posted notice and only in the amount actually charged by the processor. Title pledge transactions would continue to allow 30-day extensions, but the bill requires written evidence of extensions, prohibits capitalizing unpaid charges into principal, requires the borrower to reduce principal by at least 10% of the original amount at each extension, and bars lenders from advancing new funds to pay off an existing title pledge agreement on the same property. The bill would take effect July 1, 2026, and would amend Mississippi Code sections 75-67-313, 75-67-413, and 75-67-519.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill text is consumer-protection oriented, with the stated purpose of reducing the maximum rates charged in these high-cost, short-term lending and check-cashing markets. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from legislators or stakeholders in the available materials. The structure of the bill suggests an intent to make these products less expensive and more transparent for consumers.
The main point of contention likely concerns the practical effect of the 25% APR cap on businesses that rely on higher fee structures to cover operating costs and risk. Pawnbrokers, title pledge lenders, and check cashers may argue that the bill would reduce revenue, limit availability of services, or make some transactions uneconomic, while consumer advocates would likely support the lower-cost cap and the added disclosure and anti-rollover provisions. The title pledge principal-reduction requirement and the restriction on refinancing existing title pledge debt are especially notable because they would constrain repeated extensions and debt cycling.
HB761 would amend Mississippi’s pawnbroker, title pledge lender, and delayed-deposit check-casher statutes to impose a uniform 25% annual percentage rate cap on covered service charges and fees, replacing or narrowing existing fee schedules. It would also require clearer fee disclosure, limit certain card-processing pass-through charges to actual third-party costs, and tighten rules on title pledge extensions and check-cashing renewals. These changes would directly affect licensed lenders and check-cashing businesses, as well as consumers using small-dollar, short-term credit products.
The bill appears to be driven by a consumer-protection sentiment, aiming to reduce the cost of high-fee financial services and increase transparency for borrowers and check-cashing customers. No committee discussion or vote history is provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate in the supplied materials. Based on the text alone, the bill is framed as a reform measure rather than a deregulatory or industry-expansion measure.
The likely controversy is between consumer advocates favoring lower-cost, more transparent short-term credit and industry participants who may view the 25% APR cap as too restrictive. Pawnbrokers and title pledge lenders may object to the reduced fee ceiling and, for title pledge loans, the mandatory 10% principal reduction on extensions and the ban on using new advances to pay off existing agreements. Check cashers may also contest the lower fee cap for delayed-deposit transactions and any operational impact from the disclosure and consumer-education requirements.