SB1107 creates the “Financial Services Freedom Act,” a new state law aimed at limiting what the bill describes as politicized “debanking” by large financial institutions. It would prohibit certain banks and payment processors from refusing, restricting, or terminating financial services based on a customer’s religion, speech, political views, associations, or participation in specified lawful industries. The bill also defines a broad concept of “social credit score” to capture evaluations tied to protected speech or beliefs, as well as certain positions on greenhouse-gas disclosures, racial/diversity/gender audits, abortion or gender-reassignment assistance, firearms, fossil fuels, and agriculture, while carving out some risk-based underwriting standards that are publicly disclosed in advance.
The bill gives customers a right to request a written statement of specific reasons if service is denied, restricted, or terminated, and requires the institution to provide that explanation within 14 days unless prohibited by law. It also authorizes the Attorney General to investigate and bring civil actions, and allows harmed persons to sue directly for actual damages or at least $10,000 per violation, with possible treble damages for willful violations, attorney fees, court costs, and injunctive relief. In addition, the bill amends the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act to make violations of the new section an unlawful practice under that act.
If enacted, SB1107 would affect only very large banks and payment-related companies meeting the bill’s asset or transaction thresholds, along with their affiliates and subsidiaries. It would add a new consumer-protection enforcement mechanism in Title 6 and expand remedies under Title 15, creating potential liability for institutions that are found to have discriminated in the provision of financial services under the bill’s definitions. The measure is scheduled to take effect November 1, 2025.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of consumer access, transparency, and protection against viewpoint-based financial exclusion. The findings section frames the issue as a threat to free speech, conscience, market participation, and the soundness of the financial system. However, the committee vote shows the bill was contentious: the Senate Revenue & Taxation Committee vote on a DO PASS AMENDED committee substitute was tied 5-5, indicating significant division rather than broad consensus.
The main points of contention are likely the bill’s breadth and its policy implications for private financial institutions. Supporters appear to view it as a safeguard against ideological discrimination and opaque decision-making, while critics may see it as an intrusion into banks’ risk management and compliance practices, especially because the definition of “social credit score” reaches into politically sensitive areas such as climate policy, DEI-related audits, abortion, gender-affirming care, firearms, fossil fuels, and agriculture. The bill’s broad private right of action and damages provisions also suggest potential concern from the financial industry about litigation exposure and operational burdens.
SB1107 would create a new statutory prohibition in Title 6 against certain forms of discrimination in financial services by large banks and payment processors, and it would make violations actionable under the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act in Title 15. It would require covered institutions to provide written reasons for service denials or terminations upon request, and it would expose them to enforcement by the Attorney General and private lawsuits with damages, attorney fees, and injunctive relief. The bill would primarily affect large financial institutions and their affiliates/subsidiaries, while also establishing a new consumer remedy framework for customers alleging viewpoint-based or industry-based denial of service.
The bill’s stated purpose and findings are strongly pro-consumer and anti-discrimination, emphasizing transparency, free speech, and protection from what it characterizes as politicized debanking. At the same time, the committee vote indicates the proposal was controversial and closely divided, with a 5-5 result on a DO PASS AMENDED committee substitute in the Senate Revenue & Taxation Committee. That split suggests meaningful support, but also substantial skepticism about the bill’s scope and effects.
The most notable contention is over whether the bill appropriately prevents unfair discrimination or instead overreaches into private financial institutions’ risk management and business judgment. Supporters are likely focused on protecting religious exercise, political speech, and lawful commerce from viewpoint-based exclusion, while opponents may object to the expansive definition of “social credit score,” the inclusion of climate, DEI, abortion, gender-affirming care, firearms, fossil fuels, and agriculture, and the bill’s mandatory disclosure and litigation provisions. The tied committee vote reflects that these concerns were significant enough to prevent clear committee consensus.