SB1515 creates a new state law aimed at large financial institutions and payment companies, prohibiting them from denying, restricting, or terminating financial services based on what the bill defines as a “social credit score.” The bill defines that term broadly to include evaluations tied to protected religious exercise, speech, association, privacy around political activity, refusal to adopt greenhouse-gas targets or disclosures, refusal to conduct race/diversity/gender audits or quotas, refusal to assist with abortions or gender reassignment services, and lawful business ties to firearms, fossil fuels, or agriculture. It also excludes from the definition ordinary risk-based underwriting that is established in advance and publicly disclosed.
The bill gives customers a right to request a written statement of specific reasons when service is denied, restricted, or terminated, and requires the institution to provide that explanation within 14 days unless prohibited by law. The statement must identify the basis for the action, include relevant terms of service, and cite the specific contractual provisions relied upon. The measure also prohibits coordination or conspiracy to engage in the banned discrimination and makes violations enforceable under the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act.
SB1515 authorizes enforcement by the Attorney General, including investigation and civil action, and also creates a private right of action for harmed persons. Available remedies include actual damages or $10,000 per violation, whichever is greater, with enhanced damages for willful violations up to three times actual damages or $30,000, plus attorney fees and costs. Courts may also issue injunctive or restraining relief. The bill further amends the Consumer Protection Act to add a new unlawful practice tied to violations of the new financial-services section and updates statutory references.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly protective of free speech, religious exercise, and certain lawful industries, suggesting the bill is intended to prevent politically or ideologically motivated “debanking.” There were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the supplied history. The only visible political signal in the context is that the bill was later coauthored by Senator Prieto, which may indicate some level of support or bipartisan interest.
The main points of contention likely center on whether the bill improperly limits how private financial institutions manage risk, compliance, and reputational exposure, versus whether it is needed to stop viewpoint-based discrimination in banking. The bill’s broad definitions, especially those covering climate-related disclosures, DEI-related audits, abortion and gender-transition services, firearms, fossil fuels, and agriculture, suggest it could be controversial among advocates for ESG policies, civil-rights enforcement, and financial-sector autonomy.
SB1515 would add a new section to Title 6 governing large banks and payment processors, and it would tie violations into the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act in Title 15. It creates new duties for covered financial institutions, new customer disclosure rights after denial of service, and new civil liability exposure for institutions that are found to discriminate based on the bill’s defined protected factors. It also expands the Attorney General’s enforcement authority and creates a private cause of action with statutory damages, fees, and injunctive relief.
Based on the bill language and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the measure appears to be framed as a consumer- and civil-liberties protection bill, especially for speech, religion, and certain industries that may be affected by ESG or political screening. The later coauthorship by Senator Prieto suggests at least some legislative support. No formal opposition is documented in the provided materials, but the subject matter is inherently likely to draw mixed reactions because it restricts how large financial institutions can apply risk, policy, or values-based criteria.
The most likely contention is over the bill’s broad prohibition on using a “social credit score” in financial decisions. Supporters would likely argue it prevents ideological discrimination and protects lawful speech, religion, and business activity; critics may argue it interferes with private underwriting, compliance, and risk management. Specific flashpoints include the bill’s treatment of climate-related disclosures, race/diversity/gender audits, abortion and gender-reassignment services, and ties to firearms, fossil fuels, and agriculture, all of which are explicitly folded into the prohibited scoring definition.