House Bill 919, titled the Fair Access to Financial Services Act, would prohibit banks, credit unions, state associations, state savings banks, and certain insurance practices from denying, canceling, or otherwise discriminating in service based on specified political, religious, or business-related factors. The bill bars use of “social credit score” style evaluations that consider lawful firearm ownership or firearm-related activity, participation in fossil fuel, timber, mining, or agriculture industries, support for government efforts against illegal immigration or trafficking, or a person’s failure to meet ESG, environmental, social justice, DEI, or certain workforce composition standards, so long as the person is otherwise in compliance with state and federal law. It also restricts the use of subjective standards unless they are fully disclosed and acknowledged in writing before a contract is formed.
The bill would require covered banks to file an annual attestation with the Commissioner of Banks, under penalty of perjury, stating whether they comply with the new anti-discrimination requirements. It creates a private right of action for an aggrieved person to seek damages or injunctive relief and declares violations to be unfair or deceptive trade practices under North Carolina’s consumer protection law. The bill also extends these requirements to state associations, state savings banks, and credit unions, with credit unions submitting the annual report to the Administrator.
In the insurance code, HB919 would amend the definition of unfair discrimination to prohibit insurers from refusing coverage or charging different rates solely because of ESG criteria, DEI policies, or political and ideological factors, unless the decision is based on sound underwriting and actuarial principles tied to actual or reasonably anticipated loss experience. The act would apply prospectively to conduct occurring on or after its effective date.
The available legislative history shows the bill was referred to the House Rules, Calendar, and Operations Committee on April 14, 2025, with no recorded votes or committee debate in the provided materials. Based on the text, the bill appears to be framed as a consumer and anti-discrimination measure for financial services, but it also reflects a broader policy effort to limit ESG- and DEI-based decision-making in banking and insurance. Because there is no transcript or vote record here, the overall sentiment can only be inferred from the bill’s sponsors and structure rather than from formal debate.
The main points of contention likely involve whether the bill protects customers from viewpoint-based discrimination or instead restricts private financial institutions’ risk-management and underwriting discretion. Supporters would likely emphasize access to financial services for lawful businesses and individuals, while critics may argue that the bill intrudes on banks’ and insurers’ ability to assess reputational, compliance, and portfolio risk, and that the “social credit score” language is broad and potentially difficult to administer.
HB919 would add a new anti-discrimination section to Chapter 53C governing banks and then incorporate that standard into laws governing state associations, state savings banks, and credit unions. It would also amend the insurance unfair-practices statute to limit the use of ESG, DEI, political, and ideological factors in underwriting and pricing decisions unless supported by actuarial principles. The bill would create new compliance duties, including annual attestations, disclosure requirements for subjective standards, and a private cause of action with potential damages, injunctions, and unfair-trade-practice remedies.
The bill’s apparent sentiment is strongly protective of access to financial services and skeptical of ESG- and DEI-based decision-making by financial institutions. With no committee transcript or vote record provided, there is no documented floor or committee opposition in the materials, but the text itself suggests a policy alignment with consumers, firearm owners, faith-based concerns, and certain industries such as fossil fuels, agriculture, timber, and mining. The framing indicates likely support from lawmakers concerned about “debanking” and ideological discrimination, alongside likely resistance from institutions that favor broader discretion in risk assessment and underwriting.
The central controversy is whether the bill prevents unfair discrimination or instead compels banks and insurers to serve customers they may view as higher risk for legitimate business reasons. Supporters are likely to argue that political beliefs, lawful firearm activity, religious exercise, and participation in energy or agriculture should not be grounds for service denial, while opponents may contend that the bill’s restrictions on ESG, DEI, and subjective standards interfere with private contracting and risk management. The requirement for written disclosure and signed acknowledgment of subjective standards, plus the private right of action and UDTPA treatment, may also be contentious because they increase compliance exposure and litigation risk for financial institutions.