Lower Cap on Credit Card Interest
House Bill 508 would lower the maximum monthly interest rate and related finance charges that may be imposed on certain revolving credit accounts in North Carolina. The bill amends G.S. 24-11 to reduce the cap on credit card and similar open-end credit charges from 1.5% per month to 1.17% per month, while leaving in place other existing rules governing annual fees, service charges, late payment charges, billing notice requirements, and consumer rights to reject new annual charges on existing accounts.
The bill also makes technical and conforming changes throughout the statute, including clarifying language about billing dates, late fees, and the treatment of secured open-end credit. It preserves the general framework for revolving credit loans, credit card accounts, and certain check credit/check loan arrangements, but narrows the amount lenders may charge beginning October 1, 2025, for interest, finance charges, and fees covered by the section.
If enacted, the bill would directly amend North Carolina’s consumer credit law, G.S. 24-11, by lowering the legal ceiling on monthly revolving credit charges for covered accounts. This would affect credit card issuers, banks, lenders, and other providers of open-end credit, as well as consumers who carry balances on those accounts. The bill does not eliminate finance charges or late fees, but it reduces the maximum rate lenders may charge on unpaid balances and applies prospectively to charges imposed on or after October 1, 2025.
Based on the bill title and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears to be consumer-protection oriented and supportive of lowering borrowing costs. The measure is framed as a reduction in credit card interest, suggesting an intent to provide relief to cardholders who carry balances. Because there are no transcripts or vote records included, there is no documented opposition or support to characterize beyond the bill’s apparent policy goal.
The primary point of contention is likely to be the tradeoff between consumer savings and lender revenue. Supporters would view the bill as a way to reduce high-cost revolving debt and protect consumers from expensive credit card charges, while opponents may argue that a lower cap could reduce credit availability, increase costs elsewhere, or limit lenders’ flexibility in pricing risk. The bill also preserves late fees and annual charges, so any debate may focus on whether the interest-rate reduction is sufficient, too aggressive, or potentially disruptive to the credit market.