Transcript Highlights:

• Merchants actually pay higher rates between 3% to 7% of the transaction, plus a transaction fee.
• The fee might look attractive at around 1% of the transaction cost, but... ...the transaction, but things
• So it’s very important to note the difference between a credit card transaction and a debit card transaction
• per transaction.
• per transaction.

Summary: The Special Legislative Commission on the Future of Payments and Sales Transactions by Credit Card and the Impacts for Small Business held a public hearing focused on credit card interchange fees, cashless transactions, chargebacks, fraud, and possible reforms affecting small businesses in Massachusetts. Chair Paul Feeney opened the meeting, outlined the commission’s charge, and noted that the hearing would hear from small business owners, industry representatives, and others on the effects of payment trends and proposed policy changes. Representative Sean Garballey testified first, arguing that universal card acceptance and the current interchange system are important to Massachusetts tourism and should not be disrupted ahead of a busy summer season. A large portion of the hearing featured independent restaurant owners and advocates, who said processing fees are especially burdensome because restaurants operate on very thin margins and are charged fees on sales tax and tips that are not retained as revenue. Testifiers including Jen Ziskin, Kristen Canty, Nancy Cushman, and Kerry Colzer described rising operating costs and gave examples of annual or monthly fee totals, urging relief from fees on tax and gratuity amounts. Ryan Lotz also asked for chargeback reforms, including refunding chargeback fees when merchants prevail, requiring consumers to contact businesses before disputing charges, proportional fees, and safeguards against repeat abuse. Several witnesses, including Dan Swanson, argued that states have authority to regulate aspects of the payment system and cited the Illinois litigation and federal court rulings as support for state action. Opposing testimony came from credit unions, banks, payment industry representatives, and policy groups, who warned that changing interchange rules could create compliance burdens, reduce rewards, raise account fees, and shift costs elsewhere. Witnesses such as Alex Vereen, Brad Popolado, Keely McEwen, David Montero, Hunter Hamburlin, and Luke Bondar emphasized fraud prevention, network security, consumer protections, and the need for a stable, uniform payment system. Some suggested alternatives such as vendor compensation, surcharging, instant payments, or QR pay code standards, while others argued that sales tax and tip amounts cannot easily be separated within current card-network architecture. The chairs said the commission is still exploring options, discussed possible state-level solutions, and announced plans for one more public hearing before moving toward recommendations and a report. The commission then voted to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• Merchants actually pay higher rates, between 3% to 7% of the transaction, plus a transaction fee.
• Merchants actually pay higher rates, between 3% to 7% of the transaction, plus a transaction fee.
• So it’s very important to note the difference between a credit card transaction and a debit card transaction
• So it’s very important to note the difference between a credit card transaction and a debit card transaction
• per transaction.

Summary: The Special Legislative Commission on the Future of Payments and Sales Transactions by Credit Card and the Impacts for Small Businesses held a public hearing chaired by Senator Paul Feeney and Representative Jamie Murphy. The commission reviewed its charge to gather input on payment trends, cashless transactions, credit card fees, mobile payments, buy now/pay later, and related issues affecting small businesses. Representative Sean Garballey testified in support of maintaining the current card system, emphasizing tourism’s importance to Massachusetts and arguing that universal card acceptance and interchange stability are especially important with major upcoming events and visitors. A large portion of the hearing focused on independent restaurants and small businesses arguing that credit card processing fees are burdensome and unfair when applied to sales tax and gratuities that are not business revenue. Testifiers including Jen Ziskin, Kristen Canty, Nancy Cushman, Kerry Colzer, and others described razor-thin margins and said restaurants pay fees on money passed through to the state or employees. Ryan Lotz also urged reforms to chargebacks, including refunding chargeback fees when merchants prevail, requiring consumers to contact businesses first, and making fees proportional. In response, credit union and banking representatives, including Alex Vereen, Brad Popolado, Deb Peters, and Keely McEwen, argued that interchange funds fraud protection, card infrastructure, and consumer protections, and warned that state-specific changes could create compliance burdens, higher costs, or reduced access to services. Several witnesses addressed legal and policy questions. Dan Swanson and David Montero said states have authority to regulate aspects of the payment system, but Montero warned that state-specific rules could create uncertainty and conflict with federal banking law. Julian Morris and other industry witnesses argued that card payments benefit consumers and merchants by reducing cash-handling costs and increasing spending, while critics of reform said changes could shift costs into bank fees or reduced rewards. Commission members questioned whether sales tax could be separated from card transactions, whether surcharging should be considered, and whether vendor compensation or other state-level relief might be more workable. The chairs said they were exploring a narrower, targeted approach rather than a broad overhaul, and announced plans for one additional public hearing to allow further testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Merchants actually pay higher rates between 3% to 7% of the transaction, plus a transaction fee.
• They offer significantly lower transaction costs.
• So it's very important to note the difference between a credit card transaction and a debit card transaction
• So it's very important to note the difference between a credit card transaction and a debit card transaction
• per transaction.

Summary: The Special Legislative Commission on the Future of Payments and Sales Transactions by Credit Card and the Impacts for Small Businesses held a public hearing focused on interchange fees, sales tax and tip processing, chargebacks, fraud, surcharging, and the broader future of payment systems. Chair Paul Feeney and co-chair Rep. Jamie Murphy opened by explaining the commission’s charge and inviting testimony from small businesses, industry groups, banks, and policy experts. Representative Sean Garballey testified first, arguing that Massachusetts tourism depends on universal card acceptance and stable interchange, and urging the commission not to disrupt the current system ahead of major events expected to bring millions of visitors to the Commonwealth. A large portion of the hearing featured independent restaurant owners and advocates describing thin margins and the burden of paying percentage-based processing fees on sales tax and tips that are not business revenue. Jen Ziskin, Kristen Canty, Nancy Cushman, Kerry Colzer, and others said restaurants often operate on very small profits and that processing fees on taxes and gratuities can amount to tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. Ryan Lotz also urged reforms to chargebacks, including refunding chargeback fees when merchants prevail, requiring consumers to contact businesses before disputing charges, and limiting repeat abuse. Commission members pressed witnesses on whether tax and tip amounts could be separated at the point of sale, and several witnesses said current consumer card systems do not transmit that level of detail. Testimony from credit union, banking, and payments representatives largely opposed state-level changes that would carve out taxes or tips from interchange, warning of compliance burdens, higher costs, reduced rewards, and possible effects on fraud protection and access to credit. Alex Verine of America’s Credit Unions and Deb Peters and Keely McEwen of the Electronic Payments Coalition said the payment system is complex, that interchange funds fraud prevention and network infrastructure, and that new state mandates could create operational and legal uncertainty. Dan Swanson argued states have authority to act and pointed to Illinois litigation and federal court rulings, while Julian Morris and Brad Popolado emphasized the benefits of card acceptance, the decline of cash, and the need to consider other payment methods and check fraud as well. Several witnesses discussed international payment systems, instant payments, and QR standards as possible future directions. The chairs and members engaged in extended back-and-forth with witnesses about whether Massachusetts could exempt sales tax from swipe fees, whether surcharging should be revisited, and whether vendor compensation or other targeted relief might be more workable than broad changes to interchange. No votes were taken. At the close of the hearing, the chairs said the commission would hold one additional public hearing date to be determined, after which members would begin developing next steps and a report.

Transcript Highlights:

• And and again, maybe you clarify your saying regular cash transactions, you mean for are there transaction
• Also, it changes the refund requirement from the infant entire first transaction to all transaction fees
• were over the course of multiple transactions.
• , the 3rd, the 4th transaction.
• And so yet having these limitations per transaction for existing yet having these limitations per transaction

Committee: House Commerce Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill before you provides for rounding of cash transactions in the same way as the Senate transaction
• Second, the bill specifies that rounding applies to in-person transactions only, and it addresses transactions
• We're making sure that cash transactions—this is only applicable to cash transactions—and when you have
• The transactions we do occur over a number of months.
• They're lengthy transactions, many times many years.

Bills: HB1269 , HB2624

Committee: Senate Business, Trade & Economic Development

Keywords: pawnbroker, fees, interest rates, consumer protection, financial regulation, real estate transactions, nonprofit, land conservancies, unsolicited offers, property rights

Transcript Highlights:

• So, he goes into his wallet, he hits send, it triggers a transaction, and that transaction needs to be
• transaction, and that transaction<00:18:28.320><c> needs</c><00:18:28.559><c> to</c><00:18:28.720><c>
• like Bitcoin verified their transactions like Bitcoin verified their transactions.<00:19:11.520><c>
• </c> single transaction, every single swipe. single transaction, every single swipe.
• </c> because uh who wants to pay transaction because uh who wants to pay transaction fees?

Summary: The Hawaii State Senate Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection held an informational briefing on digital assets, blockchain, and related regulatory developments. Chair Jarrett Keohoko said the committee was focusing on national and state policy issues around digital assets, while leaving the separate issue of Bitcoin kiosks and fraud to the House Consumer Protection Committee, which had already noticed a similar briefing. No public testimony was taken; the session was for informational updates and member questions. Representatives from the Aptos Foundation, including JC Yun and Michael Cheng, gave a detailed presentation on blockchain basics and Aptos’s technology. They described blockchain as a tamper-resistant digital ledger, explained proof-of-work and proof-of-stake systems, and argued that proof-of-stake networks are faster, cheaper, and more environmentally friendly. They also emphasized smart contracts and potential uses beyond speculation, such as car titles, college transcripts, collectibles, digital IDs, real estate, and other tokenized assets. The presenters highlighted Aptos’s Hawaii connections and said the technology could help local residents and businesses participate in the digital economy. They cited adoption statistics, including billions of transactions on Aptos, tokenized money market funds from major financial firms, micro-lending applications, decentralized cloud infrastructure, and the rapid growth of stablecoins. They acknowledged concerns about scams and consumer protection, but argued that the answer is stronger regulation and education rather than avoiding the technology altogether.

Transcript Highlights:

• They can be transacted in online, on-chain transactions 24-7 with anyone that can access a crypto wallet
• They also can be transacted only on-chain.
• All transactions run through those centralized intermediaries in some way.
• And there's no reversing that transaction.
• That's not a securities transaction. There are many things that are not.

Committee: Senate Subcommittee on Digital Assets

Keywords: Digital Assets, Bitcoin, Stablecoins, Legislation, Bipartisan, Consumer Protection, Regulatory Framework, Financial Innovation, Testimony

Summary: The inaugural meeting of the Digital Assets Subcommittee brought a wave of excitement and anticipation regarding the future of digital assets, including Bitcoin and stablecoins. Chair Lummis expressed gratitude towards Senator Scott for establishing the subcommittee, indicating a commitment to promote responsible innovation while safeguarding consumers. Members discussed the necessity for a bipartisan legislative framework to regulate digital asset markets effectively while outlining the potential benefits such legislation could have on enhancing financial inclusion and streamlining payments. The meeting featured expert testimonies from key figures in the digital asset industry, highlighting the importance of creating clear regulatory guidance for digital assets to foster innovation without compromising consumer protections.

Transcript Highlights:

• Now they're often 3% or more of the transaction amount.
• You're saying if a transaction is fraudulent, but there was a tax to the transaction, and then if it
• So every transaction has a tax, correct?
• , not just the sales tax portion of the transaction.
• transaction?"

Summary: The Assembly Banking and Finance Committee heard several bills, beginning with AB 407, which would expand the California Pollution Control Financing Authority. The author said the measure would increase flexibility and access to resources, and the bill was approved 7-0 and sent to the Committee on Local Government. The committee also adopted the consent calendar, which included AB 76, by a 7-0 vote. A lengthy portion of the meeting focused on AB 1065, which would prohibit swipe fees on the sales tax portion of credit card transactions. Supporters, including small business owners, restaurant and grocery representatives, and a payments-policy expert, argued the bill would reduce costs for merchants and consumers and rein in dominant card networks. Opponents, including banks, credit unions, and payment industry groups, argued the bill is likely preempted by federal law, would be difficult to implement, and could disproportionately affect community banks and credit unions. After extensive questioning about preemption, fraud, implementation, and consumer impacts, the committee rejected the bill on a 6-0 vote, but then granted reconsideration by a 7-1 vote. The committee then heard AB 1365, which would create the Cal Account Program, a zero-fee, zero-penalty state banking account for unbanked and underbanked Californians. Supporters said the program would help low-income households, survivors of abuse, and others facing barriers to traditional banking, while opponents from community banks and credit unions argued existing low-cost accounts and the Bank On program already address the need and raised concerns about cost, feasibility, and duplication. The bill advanced on a 6-0 vote and later received enough votes on the reopened roll to move forward to the Committee on Labor and Employment. The committee also approved AB 1052, which would create a legal framework for digital assets and address unclaimed digital property and restrictions on public officials issuing or promoting digital assets, and AB 1180, which would create a pilot program for paying state fees with digital financial assets and require a report on broader adoption. Both bills passed with broad support after brief testimony and discussion. Final roll calls later confirmed AB 1052 and AB 1180, along with AB 407 and AB 1365, were moved out of committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• But it's like any other free market transaction.
• So the seller was aware of what type of transaction they were going to be entering into.
• “No, both parties in the transaction waive it, but not one or the other.
• Or a buyer in the real estate transaction.
• There has to be some kind of transaction for me to be the owner.

Committees: House Commerce , House Commerce, Consumer Protection, Energy and the Environment

Transcript Highlights:

• But it's like any other free market transaction.
• So the seller was aware of what type of transaction they were going to be entering into.
• No, both parties in the transaction waive it, but not one or the other.
• There has to be some kind of transaction for me to be the owner.
• And I'm already seeing. that transaction.

Committee: House Commerce, Consumer Protection, Energy and the Environment

Summary: The Commerce Committee met in executive session and voted to do pass House Bill 3027 by an 8-0 vote. It then considered House Bill 3490, which deals with historic preservation and colleges and universities. Members debated local control, private property rights, and whether the bill should apply statewide rather than only to Kansas City. The committee adopted a House Committee Substitute that removed the geographic limitation and made the measure apply to public and private colleges and universities, with an option for institutions to opt in or out of local historic commission rules. The substitute was then passed 6-2. The committee next took up House Bill 3316, which includes Department of Revenue cleanup changes related to vehicle registration, temporary plates, boats, trailers, and lien notice language. Members discussed the bill’s effect on temporary tags and enforcement. The committee adopted a House Committee Amendment, rolled it into a substitute, and then voted unanimously 8-0 to do pass the House Committee Substitute for House Bill 3316. The committee then moved to a public hearing on Senate Bill 973, a consumer protection bill sponsored by Senator Curtis Trent. The bill requires disclosures for real estate wholesaling and sale-leaseback transactions so sellers understand that wholesalers are not acting as fiduciaries and may not be maximizing the seller’s price. Supporters said the bill would protect distressed or uninformed sellers, while opponents from the real estate industry supported the disclosure concept but raised concerns about the 14-day waiting period before a transaction can proceed, especially in foreclosure or other time-sensitive situations. Some members also questioned whether the bill should require licensed real estate agents or allow waivers of the waiting period. No final action was taken on SB 973, and the committee adjourned after the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• public meeting of the Special Legislative Commission to study the future of payments and sales transactions
• They change from one transaction to the next.
• As you remember, there are several types of fees deducted from transaction amounts on card transactions
• The Federal Reserve tracks this data with respect to debit card transactions.
• of 1.25%. ...in place for five years on standard card transactions of 1.25%.

Summary: The Special Legislative Commission on the future of credit card payments and their impacts on small businesses held what was described as its last public hearing. Chair Paul Feeney opened by noting the commission’s mandate under Chapter 238 of the Acts of 2024 and explained that members would continue working on a final report after the hearing. The meeting featured testimony from banks, payment industry groups, restaurant advocates, convenience store representatives, and others, with repeated discussion of interchange fees, surcharging, fraud, and federal preemption issues. Banking and card-industry witnesses, including the Massachusetts Bankers Association, the Card Coalition, and the Electronic Payments Coalition, argued that state-level interchange restrictions would disrupt a global payment system, create compliance problems, and likely apply only to a small share of transactions because of federal preemption. They emphasized consumer and merchant benefits of cards, the role of banks in absorbing fraud losses, and recent federal and state developments, including Illinois litigation, OCC and NCUA actions, and a settlement that they said would give merchants more flexibility. Several witnesses also suggested alternatives such as vendor compensation for tax collection and modernizing Massachusetts’ surcharge ban. Restaurant and convenience-store advocates took the opposite view, saying swipe fees are a major burden on thin-margin businesses and that merchants should not pay interchange on sales tax or gratuities that are not their revenue. Mass Restaurants United and individual restaurant owners described severe financial strain, rising costs, and the need for transparency and relief. NACS supported swipe fee reform and argued that current fees are excessive and inflationary. A few members questioned witnesses about whether industry should share more of the burden and about the feasibility of changing the current system. No votes or formal policy actions were taken. The chair said the commission would meet again to discuss a draft framework and final report, and members of the public were invited to submit additional written testimony before the commission concludes its work.

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill before you provides for rounding of cash transactions in the same way as the Senate transaction
• Second, the bill specifies that rounding applies to in-person transactions only, and it addresses transactions
• We're making sure that cash transactions—this is only applicable to cash transactions—and when you have
• The transactions we do occur over a number of months; they're lengthy transactions, many times many years
• we work on are willing buyer, willing seller transactions.

Summary: The Senate Business, Trade, and Economic Development Committee heard public testimony on several House bills. HB 2624 would expand an existing exemption in the solicited real estate transaction law to allow public entities to solicit and buy real property for any public purpose, and also for Indian tribes and nonprofit nature conservancy organizations; the sponsor said the bill is meant to fix an omission from last year’s law, while a forest landowners group opposed it as creating a loophole for low-ball offers to vulnerable owners, and Trust for Public Land supported it as a different kind of transaction with existing appraisal and public-process protections. HB 2334 would create a cash-transaction rounding system to address the end of penny minting; staff said rounding would apply after tax and be permissive for sellers, with immunity and preemption provisions, and retailers and grocery groups supported it as a practical solution to penny scarcity, while members asked about signage and mixed-tender transactions. The committee also heard HB 1269, which would shorten pawn loan terms from 90 to 60 days, raise interest and fee caps, increase storage fees, and allow online payments for extensions. Pawn industry witnesses and the sponsor said the changes are modest, overdue, and needed to reflect inflation and operating costs while serving unbanked customers; some senators questioned whether the combined changes would more than double costs for borrowers, and industry witnesses said they were willing to work on the numbers. HB 2428 would require insurers to send advance lapse notices for individual life insurance policies to policyholders and a designated third party, with proof of delivery, to prevent unintended lapses; the sponsor, the Insurance Commissioner’s office, life insurers, AARP, and a business group all supported the consumer protection goal, though insurers noted added compliance costs and the bill’s delayed effective date for new policies. Finally, the committee heard HB 1078 on pet insurance, which would bar cancellation or nonrenewal based on a pet’s age or conditions that develop during the policy term and would restrict certain affiliate-policy transfers; the Insurance Commissioner’s office strongly supported it as a consumer protection measure, and staff noted a fiscal impact estimate and a new fiscal note request. The committee also took testimony on HB 2624 from both supporters and opponents, and on HB 2334 and HB 1269 from industry and public witnesses, but no votes were taken in the meeting. The chair closed public testimony and adjourned the committee after hearing all scheduled bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, to remove the Rock Notice before a legitimate transaction, the owner must physically appear before
• The entity must be a domestic Wyoming entity or a foreign entity qualified to transact business in Wyoming
• </c><00:44:22.240><c> business</c><00:44:22.760><c> in</c> qualified to transact business in qualified
• to transact business in Wyoming.
• short summary: it offers preventative measures such as allowing recorders and clerks to reject suspicious

Committee: Joint Corporations, Elections & Political Subdivisions

Transcript Highlights:

• public meeting of the Special Legislative Commission to study the future of payments and sales transactions
• They change from one transaction to the next.
• They change from one transaction to the next.
• As you remember, there are several types of fees deducted from transaction amounts on card transactions
• The Federal Reserve tracks this data with respect to debit card transactions.

Summary: The Special Legislative Commission studying the future of credit card payments and their impacts on small businesses held what leaders described as its last public hearing, though they said the commission would continue meeting to develop a report and recommendations. Chair Paul Feeney and other members noted the issue is complex and that they had sought testimony from a wide range of stakeholders before moving into a more deliberative phase. The commission adjourned after hearing from several in-person and virtual witnesses. Banking and card-industry witnesses, including the Massachusetts Bankers Association, the Card Coalition, the Electronic Payments Coalition, and others, argued that payment cards provide major benefits to consumers and merchants, including convenience, fraud protection, fast settlement, and broad access to electronic commerce. They warned that state-level changes to interchange rules could create a patchwork of conflicting requirements, disrupt global payment systems, and especially affect state-chartered community banks and small businesses. Several also said recent federal actions and litigation, including OCC and NCUA preemption rules and the Illinois interchange-fee litigation, have limited the practical reach of state laws. Restaurant, retail, and convenience-store witnesses pushed for relief from swipe fees, saying independent businesses operate on thin margins and pay fees on amounts that are not really their revenue, such as sales tax and gratuities. They urged transparency, the ability to surcharge, vendor compensation for tax collection, and limits on interchange or related fees. Some witnesses said merchants bear significant fraud and chargeback costs and that banks and card networks have not offered enough direct relief. Commissioners asked questions about surcharging, fee regulation, fraud, and whether industry should share more of the burden. No votes or formal actions were taken beyond adjourning the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• They understand how that's going to transact.
• Just as eBay brokers the transaction between a seller and a buyer, just as Lyft or Uber brokers the transaction
• But almost 1.4% of all transactions end up in default.
• Is there still not enough money in a transaction where you can exclude 6.25% from a 2% transaction fee
• The Illinois law calls for a $1,000 per transaction fine.

Summary: The Special Commission on the future of credit card payments and their impacts on small businesses heard testimony from credit union, retail, banking, and payments industry representatives. Much of the discussion focused on proposals to exclude sales tax and tips from interchange fees, the Illinois Interchange Fee Prohibition Act and related litigation, and whether similar state action in Massachusetts would help small businesses or instead create a patchwork that burdens state-chartered institutions. Witnesses from defense and community credit unions argued interchange helps fund fraud prevention, cybersecurity, member services, and low-fee products, while retail and NRF representatives said merchants are paying significant swipe fees and that state laws like Illinois’s are aimed at reducing costs that are not being passed on to consumers. Several witnesses emphasized that the current payment system provides security, fraud protection, rewards, and access to credit, and that many of the costs merchants complain about are actually bundled processor or acquirer fees rather than interchange itself. Others countered that small businesses are struggling with rising overall costs and that Massachusetts should consider reforms such as allowing surcharging, improving transparency in merchant contracts, and studying collection costs. There was also discussion of the recent Visa/Mastercard antitrust settlement, with industry witnesses describing it as meaningful relief for merchants and opponents saying it is temporary and incomplete. No formal votes were taken on legislation. The commission accepted oral testimony, noted that written testimony would be accepted through July 31, and concluded the meeting by unanimously voting to adjourn. The chair and members said they would continue gathering testimony and work toward recommendations, with the chair stressing the need to find a fair middle ground that supports both small businesses and the broader payments ecosystem.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's those transactions.
• It's those transactions.
• transactions in the system now that are transactions in the system now that are really<00:32:09.679><
• </c> transactions that you described Mr. transactions that you described Mr.
• So I'm sorry—read... transactions. But if there are more for transactions.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so we looked at transactional gold in particular.
• We support the building of a framework where transactions can be conducted.
• That with questions the transaction.
• Ali, I understand how you could have a transaction in gold just like you can have a transaction in Crypto
• but optional so that people can choose whether or not they're going to transact.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> toolbox to try to make transactions toolbox to try to make transactions happen<00:05:16.560><c>
• c> I'll</c> transaction transaction cap, which I'll transaction transaction cap, which I'll talk<00:10
• So those are the 3% on transactions.
• . transactions. transactions.
• </c> transaction limit for returning users. transaction limit for returning users.

Committee: Senate Banking & Insurance

Transcript Highlights:

• And so we looked at transactional gold in particular.
• Oakes was testifying about, and is really how to make it transactional.
• It's really the transactional part of it.
• So, transactionally, I understand how you can have a transaction in gold, just like you can have a transaction
• to transact.

Committee: Senate Banking and Insurance

Summary: The committee first took up SB 794, as amended by a late-filed strike-all, which would require a human being to make insurance claim denial decisions and prohibit artificial intelligence from being the sole basis for a denial. The sponsor said the bill was intended to preserve human oversight while allowing innovation in claims processing. Public testimony included support from the Florida Insurance Consumer Advocate and the Florida Medical Association, along with one speaker urging additional protections for homeowners. The committee adopted the strike-all and reported SB 794 favorably with committee substitutes. Members then heard SB 134, which removes the $500 threshold on the sales tax exemption for bullion, making sales of gold, silver, and platinum bullion fully exempt and eliminating certain dealer documentation requirements. Supporters argued the change would reduce a regressive tax and help consumers preserve savings; the sponsor estimated a revenue impact of about $300,000. The bill was reported favorably. The committee also adopted a strike-all on SB 888, which directs the Office of Insurance Regulation to create a more consumer-friendly homeowners insurance website with premium comparison information, market data, rate filing access, and educational resources. The sponsor and Leader Boyd said the goal was to improve transparency and help consumers navigate a stabilizing market. SB 888 was reported favorably with committee substitutes. The final bill heard was SB 1578, covering mammograms and supplemental breast cancer screenings. The sponsor said it would expand coverage requirements in ACA plans and private insurance policies, including annual mammograms for women ages 40 to 50 and supplemental screening coverage, while noting Medicaid already provides these services. The Florida Insurance Consumer Advocate waived in support, and the bill was reported favorably. After the bills, the committee held a lengthy panel discussion on gold and silver as legal tender and transactional money, with testimony from officials from Utah and Florida, industry representatives, and advocacy groups. Panelists discussed constitutional authority, consumer protections, depository oversight, taxation issues, and possible transactional platforms for precious metals. No further action was taken after the discussion, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• They understand how that's going to transact.
• Just as eBay brokers the transaction between a seller and a buyer, just as Lyft or Uber brokers the transaction
• And this is an example of a credit transaction.
• Is there still not enough money in a transaction where you can exclude 6.25% from a 2% transaction fee
• The Illinois law calls for a $1,000 per transaction fine.

Summary: The Special Commission on the future of payments and sales transactions by credit card heard extensive testimony from credit union, banking, retail, restaurant, and payments-industry representatives about proposals to limit interchange fees, especially on the tax and tip portions of transactions. Several witnesses opposed state-level restrictions, arguing they would create a patchwork of rules, burden state-chartered institutions, raise compliance complexity, and ultimately reduce resources for fraud prevention, cybersecurity, rewards, and access to credit. Others, including retail and merchant advocates, said swipe fees are a significant and growing cost for small businesses and that states should consider reforms such as limiting fees on taxes and tips, allowing surcharging, improving transparency in merchant contracts, and studying collection costs more closely. Witnesses also discussed recent legal and regulatory developments, including Illinois’s interchange-fee law, OCC and NCUA interim rules, and the ongoing Visa/Mastercard antitrust settlement. Industry representatives said the Illinois law has been delayed and is likely preempted for most transactions, while merchant advocates argued the state efforts and court rulings show that networks and banks do not set fees competitively. The proposed antitrust settlement was described by some as a meaningful but limited merchant victory, with temporary fee reductions and expanded surcharge/steering rights, while others said it still falls short of structural reform. The commission members pressed witnesses on the practical effects of fees, the cost of cash, whether merchants can pass costs through, and whether small businesses are actually seeing benefits from the current system. Members repeatedly emphasized the need for a fair middle ground that protects both small businesses and the payment system. No substantive votes or policy actions were taken beyond accepting testimony, and the meeting ended with adjournment after all scheduled witnesses had spoken.