An Act to direct the Office of the Attorney General to convene a work group to review fraudulent activity in electronic fund transfers and to develop recommendations to prevent such fraudulent activity.
HB190 directs the Virginia Office of the Attorney General to convene a work group to study fraudulent activity involving electronic fund transfers and to develop recommendations to help prevent and mitigate that fraud. The work group must review the federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act and its implementing Regulation E, assess reports of fraud that rely on electronic fund transfers, and consider scams such as impersonation schemes, phone fraud, digital fraud, and other misrepresentations used to induce financial fraud.
The bill does not itself change the substantive rules governing electronic fund transfers or create new penalties or consumer remedies. Instead, it establishes a study-and-recommendations process involving the Attorney General’s Office, the State Corporation Commission’s Bureau of Financial Institutions, financial institutions, consumer advocates, and other stakeholders, with a report due to legislative committee chairs by December 1, 2026.
HB190 affects state law by requiring the Attorney General to organize a cross-sector work group and deliver findings and recommendations to the General Assembly, but it does not amend the Virginia Code or the federal EFTA directly. Its practical impact is to create a formal state review of fraud trends in electronic fund transfers and to potentially inform future legislation, regulatory guidance, or consumer-protection measures for banks, credit unions, and Virginia residents who use electronic payment systems.
The available context suggests a generally favorable and noncontroversial bill. Because the measure is framed as a study and recommendation directive rather than a regulatory mandate, it appears aimed at consumer protection and fraud prevention without imposing immediate compliance burdens. The bill was enacted as Chapter 576, indicating it advanced successfully through the legislative process.
No committee transcript or recorded vote details are provided, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to identify specific objections. Any potential points of contention would likely center on whether the work group approach is sufficient to address rapidly evolving scam tactics, or whether financial institutions and state agencies may face added administrative workload. However, the text reflects broad stakeholder inclusion and a collaborative review process, which suggests limited opposition.