New York Senate Bill S01859

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/14/25
• Refer: 1/14/25
• Engrossed: 5/14/25
• Refer: 5/14/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Requires issuers of credit cards to give the cardholder at least thirty days written notice via email, text message, or written letter before closing, cancelling, or terminating the cardholder's account.

Summary

S01859 would amend New York’s General Business Law to require credit card issuers to give cardholders at least 45 days’ written notice before closing an account. The notice could be delivered by email, text message, or written letter. The bill also states that closing or deactivating a credit card without the required notice would be a violation of the law. The measure is aimed at giving consumers more time to respond to an impending account closure, such as by paying down balances, transferring recurring payments, or seeking another payment method. Although the bill text uses 45 days, the bill caption in the provided context refers to 30 days’ notice, suggesting the proposal may have been amended or described differently at different stages.

Impact

If enacted, the bill would add a new section 520-f to the General Business Law and create a statutory notice requirement for credit card issuers before account closure. It would affect banks, card issuers, and other credit card companies operating in New York by imposing a consumer-protection obligation and exposing noncompliant closures or deactivations to legal violation status. Consumers would gain a clearer right to advance notice before losing access to a credit account.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests generally favorable sentiment toward the bill, with the Senate Consumer Protection Committee approving it 6-1 and the Senate passing it 41-16. That pattern indicates broad support for the consumer-protection goal of the measure, though not unanimous agreement. The later committee vote of 5-2 also suggests continued support in committee, albeit with some dissent.

Contention

The main point of contention appears to be whether credit card issuers should be required to provide advance notice at all, and if so, how much notice is appropriate. Supporters likely view the requirement as a basic consumer safeguard that prevents sudden account loss, while opponents may be concerned about operational flexibility for issuers, fraud-risk management, or the burden of mandated notice procedures. The discrepancy between the bill text’s 45-day notice and the caption’s 30-day notice may also reflect drafting changes or a source of confusion in the bill’s development.