Transcript Highlights:

• We opened up our bank accounts at Chase Bank because we wanted a national reach.
• Each bank is unique; there are 135 banks in Alabama with over 1,300 branches.
• So, banking again is much... Govern us, so banking again is much about risk.
• Yes sir, under this bill, how many banks—other than the national banks—how many Alabama banks... ...
• National Banks. How many Alabama banks would this bill apply to?

Committee: Senate Banking and Insurance

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, Friend Bank is a of Friend Bank.
• I deal with banks every day. I'm supportive of my bank. I appreciate my bank.
• </c> compete with banks. compete with banks.
• on hold at that bank, at that particular bank.
• on hold at that bank, at that particular bank.

Committee: House County and Municipal Government

Transcript Highlights:

• Bank stress tests.
• which foreign banks can't fall.
• We always wanted our banks to be competitive with European banks.
• It was a bank run, and bank runs are incredibly damaging.
• fewer community banks and more regional banks, or fewer regional banks and more Wall Street banks?

Bills: SB257

Committee: Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• It's good for both banking associations, for the Department of Banking, and for the banks of Mississippi
• Uh, banks and banking revise various definitions.
• for parity with national banks and national banks apply for parity with state charter banks.
• Uh banks and banking Senate Bill 2383.
• national banks apply for par with state charter<00:02:27.680><c> banks.

Committee: Joint Business and Financial Institutions

Transcript Highlights:

• In banking, if you don't have deposits, you don't have a bank. They are everything.
• the banks.
• the banks.
• bank, you're losing out.
• , the banks, it's over.

Summary: The committee took roll, approved the March 18 minutes, and then received a compliance-report update on the Industrial Commission and related funds and programs. Staff reviewed the status of one-time appropriations and grant programs, including electric grid resiliency, lignite research, enhanced oil recovery, the Clean Sustainable Energy Authority, the salt cavern business-case study, and the new NDSU research and technology park grant. Members asked about funding balances, reimbursement timing, matching requirements, and how some commitments would affect the State Investment Fund and future biennia. Industrial Commission staff then gave a broader update on the agency’s administrative office, grant management system, leadership transitions at several commission agencies, and active grant rounds. They reported that the grant management system is nearing completion, that several agency leadership searches have concluded, and that the commission’s grant programs currently have 108 active grants totaling more than $165 million. They also described the Clean Sustainable Energy Authority round, the oil and gas research program’s enhanced oil recovery awards, the grid resiliency grants, the salt cavern study, and the research technology park program, noting that some projects are awaiting federal funds or additional matching cash. Ron Ness, speaking for the Oil and Gas Research Council, focused on the state of the oil industry and the enhanced oil recovery “Bakken 2.0” effort. He said production remains steady, but future growth depends on better infrastructure, longer laterals, and new EOR methods such as CO2, natural gas, and surfactants. He emphasized the importance of the Bakkeneast pipeline and related gas-utilization projects, the recent DOE funding that will return some money to the research council, and the need to modernize tax and incentive rules for CO2-based recovery. Members discussed the potential economic benefits for oil, agriculture, and manufacturing. The Bank of North Dakota then presented its compliance report and a broader strategic update. Bank leadership reviewed the bank’s mission, governance, participation lending, student lending, disaster programs, and legislatively directed programs, and said the bank is managing for a flatter deposit base and stronger liquidity because of fintech competition and changing market conditions. They reported improved earnings, with net income rising to about $231 million, and described Rough Rider Coin as a new internal payment rail for North Dakota banks and credit unions, not a public cryptocurrency. Members asked about student loan eligibility, disaster lending, and the bank’s capacity to support state programs while maintaining its balance-sheet and liquidity requirements.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the verticals of the bank.
• In banking, if you don't have deposits, you don't have a bank. They are everything.
• the banks.
• bank, you're losing out.
• , the banks, it's over.

Summary: The committee received a compliance and budget update on Industrial Commission agencies and programs, including the Industrial Commission administrative office, the Oil and Gas Research Program, the Clean Sustainable Energy Authority, the State Energy Research Center, the Research Technology Park grant program, and related funds. Staff reviewed spending and balances for items such as electric grid resiliency grants, lignite research, enhanced oil recovery, the salt cavern business case study, and the new NDSU research and technology park grant. Members also discussed timing, carryover balances, matching requirements, and how some programs are structured to reimburse projects over several years rather than spend funds immediately. Karen Tyler of the Industrial Commission described the agency’s administrative budget, the grant management system nearing completion, and the transition to standalone audits and staffing after separating from other agencies. She also outlined the status of active grant rounds across lignite, oil and gas, renewable energy, outdoor heritage, and clean sustainable energy programs. Members asked about the length of active grants, demand for clean energy funding, and the possibility of future grant rounds. Tyler and members also discussed the salt cavern study, the need to better define its commercial value, and the research technology park grant’s cash-match requirement. Ron Ness then testified on enhanced oil recovery and broader oil and gas market conditions. He said North Dakota production remained steady, but future growth depends on infrastructure, longer laterals, and better use of natural gas and carbon dioxide for EOR. He described the state’s EOR grant round, the use of federal DOE funding to replace part of a state-funded project, and the expectation of additional grant rounds. Members asked about CO2 supply, storage, and the economics of using legacy fields and pipelines to extend oil production and support agriculture and industrial uses. The committee also heard from Bank of North Dakota President Don Morgan, who reviewed the bank’s mission, governance, lending verticals, disaster programs, and new initiatives. He said the bank is seeing deposit growth flatten and is responding to fintech competition by focusing on liquidity, risk management, and a new payment infrastructure initiative called Rough Rider Coin, which he emphasized is not crypto and not a public coin, but a banking payment rail for North Dakota institutions. Members asked about student loan rates, disaster lending, and how the bank’s lines of credit and balance sheet capacity are affected by deposit trends. Morgan said the bank remains profitable and continues to support agriculture, commerce, and industry through participation loans, student lending, and state-directed programs.

Transcript Highlights:

• from establishing public banks.
• No public banks have been created.
• Section 6-700I specifically mentions a depository bank. A depository bank, a depository bank...
• A depository bank is a bank that accepts deposits.
• I do sit on banking committees.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Economic Development, Growth, and Household Impact heard several bills focused on trade, affordability, and public finance. AB 2745 (Fong) would update California’s international trade and investment strategy, add a public advisory process, and allow regional trade hubs; supporters from the California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce and California Forward said it would help California compete globally and attract investment, while no opposition testified. AB 2366 (Avila Farías) would require state agencies to analyze cost-of-living impacts when adopting regulations and direct the LAO to develop guidance; supporters from the New California Coalition and the California Manufacturers and Technology Association argued it would improve transparency and help address affordability, while members noted concerns about implementation and unintended consequences. The committee also heard AB 2243 (Haney), which creates a commission to study whether California should establish a state public bank and how it might be structured. Supporters from the California Public Banking Alliance, climate groups, and other organizations said a public bank could reduce borrowing costs and finance housing, climate, and small business needs; the California Bankers Association and credit unions opposed the bill, arguing it could compete with private banks, duplicate prior studies, and raise unresolved regulatory and cost issues. Several committee members said they would support the study concept but wanted the bill amended so any final decision would return to the Legislature, and the author agreed to clarify that point and remove language related to extending local public bank licensing timelines. The committee also took up consent items AB 2048 (Calderon), AB 2583 (Hoover), and ACR 129 (Haney), which were approved without opposition. After quorum was established, the committee voted AB 2366 out on a 7-0 basis to Judiciary, AB 2745 out on a 7-0 basis to Appropriations, and AB 2243 out on a 7-0 basis to Finance, with the consent calendar also approved.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the verticals of the bank.
• In banking, if you don't have deposits, you don't have a bank. They are everything.
• the banks.
• bank, you're losing out.
• , the banks, it's over.

Summary: The committee received a compliance and status update on Industrial Commission programs and the Bank of North Dakota. Staff reviewed appropriations and spending for several Industrial Commission funds and grant programs, including lignite research, oil and gas research, clean sustainable energy, grid resiliency, salt cavern analysis, and the new NDSU research and technology park grant. Members discussed the timing of reimbursements, uncommitted balances, and the structure of the pipeline capacity and enhanced oil recovery funding. The Industrial Commission also reported on its administrative budget, grant management system project, and recent leadership transitions across several agencies. Karen Tyler of the Industrial Commission described active grant rounds and the status of major projects. She said the Clean Sustainable Energy Authority approved three projects in its sixth round, with remaining uncommitted cash and loan capacity still available, though no new funding was appropriated this session. She also said the Oil and Gas Research Council approved six enhanced oil recovery projects and expects additional funding after a federal Department of Energy award replaces one project’s state funding. For grid resiliency grants, she said some projects have been funded, some commitments were returned or reallocated, and some DOE funds remain pending. She also updated the committee on the salt cavern business case study, which replaced an earlier larger development proposal, and on the NDSU research park grant, where the nonmatching portion was paid and the matching portion has moved slowly because the match must be in cash. Ron Ness then gave an extended presentation on enhanced oil recovery and North Dakota oil and gas trends. He said production remains steady, but future growth depends on infrastructure, especially gas takeaway and projects like the Bakken East pipeline. He argued that enhanced oil recovery using CO2, natural gas, surfactants, and other methods could extend Bakken production for decades, but that the state needs more CO2 supply, better storage, and updated tax and regulatory incentives. Members asked about lateral lengths, CO2 availability, pipeline impacts, and the role of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and Ness emphasized that the projects are intended to share technical learning across operators and attract follow-on investment. The Bank of North Dakota then presented its compliance report and strategic update. President Don Morgan said the bank’s mission remains to support North Dakota agriculture, commerce, and industry while cooperating with the state’s financial sector. He reviewed the bank’s main business lines: participation lending with community institutions, student loans, disaster lending, mission-based programs, and a new fintech-focused effort. Morgan said deposits are flattening, so the bank is managing balance sheet growth carefully, while still reporting improved net income and strong efficiency. He also introduced Rough Rider Coin as a bank-to-bank payment rail, not a public cryptocurrency, intended to speed and modernize payments within North Dakota’s banking and credit union system. Committee members asked about student loan eligibility, disaster program use, and how credit lines and liquidity would be affected if deposits shrink.

Transcript Highlights:

• AB 2243 would establish a state bank commission to evaluate how a state bank or some additional public
• AB 2243 would establish a state bank commission to evaluate how a state bank or some additional public
• larger national banks.
• AB 2243 does not create a bank.
• AB 2243 does not create a bank.

Committee: House Banking and Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• These are banks like Coastal Heritage Bank, Rockland Trust, Eastern Bank, One Local Bank, and Bay Coast
• Bank, to name a few.
• State-chartered banks are regulated by the Division of Banks, Commissioner Gallagher, and each of these
• Banks bear this cost.
• bank receives the same fee rates as every other bank in the network.

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:

• AB 2243 would establish a state bank commission to evaluate how a state bank or some additional public
• larger national banks.
• Gail Saba with California Public Banking Alliance on behalf of California Public Banking Alliance and
• Gail Saba with California Public Banking Alliance on behalf of California Public Banking Alliance and
• Gail Saba with California Public Banking Alliance on behalf of California Public Banking Alliance and

Summary: The Assembly Banking and Finance Committee met and first approved the consent calendar, which included AB 2028, AB 2425, and committee bill AB 2795, all sent to the Committee on Appropriations. The committee also noted that AB 2558 and AB 2746 had been pulled from the agenda. The chair reviewed hearing procedures, including acceptance of written testimony and rules against disruptive conduct. The committee then heard AB 2116, which would require registration and basic conduct standards for certain small-business financing providers, including merchant cash advance companies, and prohibit confessions of judgment and power-of-attorney provisions before default. Supporters argued the bill would close an oversight gap and improve transparency for small businesses; a small business owner testified that a purported 13% loan turned out to have a 235% APR. Opponents said the bill mixed consumer and commercial regulation and could restrict access to capital, though they supported banning confessions of judgment. The bill passed on a roll call vote and was sent to Appropriations. AB 2243, by Assembly Member Haney, proposed creating a state bank commission to study whether California should establish a state bank or other public financing tools. Supporters said a public banking model could reduce borrowing costs, keep more public money in-state, and better finance housing, infrastructure, and other public priorities; opponents from banking groups raised concerns about taxpayer exposure, deposit guarantees, and the use of public funds and existing lending structures. The bill passed and was sent to Appropriations. The committee also heard AB 2350, which would set guardrails on rent-now-pay-later products for rental housing; supporters said these products can lead to high fees, debt, and eviction risk, while industry groups opposed the bill unless amended. AB 2350 passed as amended and was sent to Appropriations. At the end of the meeting, the committee completed roll calls for absent members and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Mary Gallagher from the Division of Banks. Mary Gallagher from the Division of Banks. Thank you.
• These are banks like Coastal Heritage Bank, Rockland Trust, Eastern Bank, OneLocal Bank, and Bay Coast
• Bank, to name a few.
• Banks bear this cost.
• bank receives the same fee rates as every other bank in the network.

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:

• Bank. U.S. Bank is one of our core partners.
• Why $5 bank and you know, from the bank.
• What bank-led, bank-operated, bank-grade infrastructure actually looks like.
• We also give every bank, regional bank, an easy button.
• It's a bank native. Live and tested today. Our model protects banks. It's accredited to banks.

Summary: The meeting opened with roll call, confirmation of a quorum, and approval of the April 6 and May 4 minutes, with minor corrections noted to the May minutes. The main presentation came from JD of Link Network, introduced by Dan Cohen, who described Link’s work with crypto.com and other market participants on tokenized money market funds and real-time settlement for institutional clients. JD gave a detailed history of his earlier work developing the Arca U.S. Treasury Fund and ArCoin, emphasizing that the project was built within existing SEC and 1940 Act frameworks and was intended to use blockchain technology for a traditional asset rather than create a crypto product. He said the effort involved years of discussions with the SEC, multiple custodians, and partners such as U.S. Bank, T-Zero Securities, and Tassat, and that the model eventually led to Link’s settlement system. He highlighted concerns that shaped the design, including regulatory compliance, privacy for institutional users, and the need to bridge traditional banking hours with 24/7 digital asset markets. The presentation also described Link’s features, including segregated and bankruptcy-remote fund structures, tokenized deposit and treasury fund settlement, and “yield in transit,” which allows interest to accrue and be distributed daily down to a two-second block. JD said the platform is being expanded for use cases such as exchange liquidity, cross-border capital movement, off-exchange collateral, stablecoin bridging, treasury management, and peer-to-peer settlement. He closed by posing policy questions for the commission about the use cases for stablecoins versus tokenized money market funds in New Hampshire and whether the state could issue or administer a security-based program with appropriate compliance controls.

Transcript Highlights:

• How do you break it down just to Arkansas banks if there are banks that have offices and banks in other
• What he did was he didn't call his bank; he called the receiving bank.
• and non-banks.
• and non-banks.
• online with these banks?

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, banks Banks stay on that front line all the time.
• How do you break it down just to Arkansas banks if there are banks that have offices and banks in other
• How do you break it down just to Arkansas banks if there are banks that have offices and banks in other
• What he did was he didn't call his bank; he called the receiving bank.
• and non-banks.

Summary: A joint House-Senate Insurance and Commerce meeting focused on the growing threat of financial fraud in Arkansas, with members and witnesses describing scams targeting seniors, small businesses, and working families. The committee first approved the November 3, 2025 minutes, then heard from the Arkansas Bankers Association, the American Bankers Association, banks, the Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division, the Arkansas Mortgage Bankers Association, the State Bank and Securities Department, the Insurance Department, and AARP. Witnesses described common schemes including spoofed bank calls and texts, government imposter scams, romance and investment scams, business email compromise, fake job postings, gift card scams, check fraud, wire fraud, reverse mortgage scams, identity theft, and insurance fraud. Several witnesses emphasized that cryptocurrency kiosks and crypto transfers make recovery difficult or impossible, and that artificial intelligence is making scams more convincing and scalable. Witnesses repeatedly stressed education, verification, and coordination among banks, law enforcement, regulators, and consumers. Bank and mortgage representatives urged consumers to slow down, independently verify wire instructions, avoid clicking unexpected links, use tap-to-pay rather than chip or swipe when possible, and never share account credentials or one-time codes. The Attorney General’s office said it investigates consumer complaints, mediates disputes, works with social media platforms to remove scam ads, and recently created a Financial Fraud Task Force with bankers and other stakeholders. The State Bank and Securities Commissioner highlighted the Safe AR Act, the state’s crypto kiosk framework, and fraud education efforts such as “fraud bingo,” while the Insurance Department described its law-enforcement role and a range of insurance-related fraud schemes it prosecutes. AARP said fraud is widespread and underreported, especially among older adults. Members asked about reporting scams, how losses are handled, whether tap is safer than chip, how crypto fraud works, whether Arkansas has model legislation to address telecom and social media impersonation, and how local law enforcement and state agencies coordinate investigations. Witnesses said banks generally absorb much of the financial loss under federal rules, while consumers bear the inconvenience and account changes. Several witnesses said Arkansas should consider additional legislation to hold telecom companies and social media platforms accountable for spoofed caller IDs and impersonation ads, and one witness said a federal Scam Act is moving in Congress. No additional votes or formal actions were taken beyond approval of the minutes, but witnesses agreed to share consumer education materials and model legislation with committee staff.

Transcript Highlights:

• in support of the banks.
• You've got not only your acquiring banks, your issuing banks.
• Think about this: every bank now—there are over 12,000 banks in the world—every bank has to be able to
• Banks don't know what you bought.
• to his bank account.

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:

• , uninsured national banks when it comes to other non-banks.
• Yeah, I think this is one where banks in particular, community banks, but also the larger banks, view
• </c> um banks in particular community banks um banks in particular community banks but<00:40:07.599><
• likely will be a bank-to-bank or internally within the bank type of use case.
• will be a bank-to-bank or internal within the bank type of use case.

Summary: The meeting began with roll call and introductions of commission members and guests, followed by approval of the agenda and a motion to approve the February 10 minutes with a correction clarifying that one quoted statement was misattributed. The commission then moved into presentations. The main presentation came from the Conference of State Bank Supervisors on implementation of the federal GENIUS Act for stablecoins. The speaker reviewed the OCC’s recent 367-page proposed rule, noting it raises many open questions and design choices for states, and discussed expected upcoming rulemaking from the FDIC, Federal Reserve, and Treasury. The presentation focused on six areas: permissible issuer activities, reserve assets and redemption, risk management and supervision, treatment of state-qualified issuers, capital/operational backstops, and foreign issuers. It also flagged unresolved issues around Bank Secrecy Act/AML requirements and the meaning of “digital asset service provider” activities. A substantial portion of the discussion addressed yield restrictions, with the presenter explaining the OCC’s broad definition of yield and its rebuttable presumption against issuer-affiliated or related third-party yield arrangements. The speaker said this likely forecloses many existing white-label structures but leaves some room for third-party payments depending on distance from the issuer, and noted ongoing Senate debate over similar provisions. The presentation also covered reserve valuation, liquidity and diversification requirements, redemption timing, and supervisory expectations such as third-party oversight, IT security, exam cycles, and reporting. No additional votes or formal actions were taken beyond approving the amended minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• How do you break it down just to Arkansas banks if there are banks that have offices and banks in other
• How do you break it down just to Arkansas banks if there are banks that have offices in other states?
• And then contact the bank directly. And then contact the bank directly anytime you have a question.
• What he did was he didn't call his bank; he called the receiving bank.
• and non-banks.

Summary: A joint House-Senate Insurance and Commerce meeting focused on the growing threat of financial fraud in Arkansas, with members hearing from bankers, regulators, law enforcement, AARP, and mortgage and insurance industry representatives. Witnesses described a wide range of scams, including spoofed bank calls and texts, fake websites and social media impersonation, romance and investment scams, business email compromise, gift card fraud, check fraud, wire fraud, reverse mortgage scams, and crypto kiosk schemes. Several speakers emphasized that fraud is increasingly organized, technology-driven, and amplified by artificial intelligence, and that seniors are disproportionately targeted and often suffer the largest losses. Testimony highlighted both prevention and recovery efforts. Bankers said institutions spend heavily on training, customer education, and fraud detection, but often cannot stop losses once customers have been convinced to authorize transfers. The Attorney General’s office described its Consumer Protection Division, a new Financial Fraud Task Force, and examples of recovering funds quickly from crypto kiosk and wire fraud cases. The State Bank Department and Securities Department said Arkansas’s 2025 crypto ATM legislation and related education requirements have helped, and they urged continued public education. The Insurance Department reported major insurance-fraud trends, including fake insurance cards, forged policies, premium-finance schemes, and staged auto accidents, and said it prosecutes these cases aggressively. Members asked about reporting scams, the security of tap payments, how fraud losses are tracked, the role of crypto kiosks, and whether Arkansas should pursue model legislation or stronger action against telecom and social media companies. Witnesses said tap payments are generally safer than chip or swipe, that crypto transfers are often unrecoverable, and that spoofed caller ID and impersonation ads remain major problems. Paul Benda of the American Bankers Association urged state and federal action against telecom and social media platforms and supported national scam legislation. No new bills were voted on at the meeting, but members approved the November 3, 2025 minutes and several witnesses offered to share model legislation, consumer education materials, and state-by-state fraud data with the committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• in support of the banks.
• , which is great for the banks because this structure means that banks don't have to compete over the
• You've got not only your acquiring banks and issuing banks, you've got the acquiring bank, the merchant's
• Banks don't know what you bought.
• to his bank account.

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:

• in support of the banks.
• , which is great for the banks because this structure means that banks don't have to compete over the
• You've got not only your acquiring banks and issuing banks, you've got the acquiring bank, the merchant's
• Banks don't know what you bought.
• to his bank account.

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.