Creating Fair Access to Financial Services Act
SB 663 creates the Fair Access to Financial Services Act, a new article in West Virginia law aimed at limiting what it defines as discriminatory treatment by large financial institutions. The bill applies to banks and certain payment companies above specified size thresholds and makes it unlawful for them to refuse, stop, or limit financial services based on a list of protected or policy-related factors. Those factors include constitutional rights, lawful commercial activity, conscience objections related to abortion or gender transition services, refusal to adopt greenhouse-gas targets beyond legal requirements, and refusal to participate in race-, diversity-, or gender-based audits, quotas, preferences, or disclosures.
The bill also requires covered financial institutions, upon written request, to explain in writing the objective, quantitative, impartial, and risk-based reasons for a denial or restriction of services, while allowing them to withhold confidential or proprietary underwriting information. It creates a private right of action for affected persons, authorizes enforcement by the Attorney General, allows recovery of actual damages or $10,000 per violation, permits injunctive relief, and provides for attorney fees and litigation costs. Claims must be filed within two years.
If enacted, SB 663 would add a new consumer and business protection framework to West Virginia’s code governing financial services, specifically targeting large banks, credit card companies, payment processors, and similar entities. It would restrict the ability of those institutions to make service decisions based on the bill’s defined discriminatory factors and would require documentation and disclosure of the basis for adverse decisions when requested. The bill would also expand enforcement tools by creating both private lawsuits and Attorney General actions, with statutory damages, fee shifting, and equitable remedies.
The available voting history suggests the bill had meaningful support in the Senate, passing 23-9 on March 31, 2025. The bill’s framing indicates a strong policy preference for preventing perceived politically or ideologically motivated “debanking” and for protecting lawful businesses and individuals from financial exclusion. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, so the record here shows support in passage but does not include detailed debate comments.
The main points of contention are likely the bill’s broad definition of “discriminatory factor” and its application to large financial institutions’ risk and compliance decisions. Supporters would view the measure as protecting free exercise, lawful commerce, and businesses from viewpoint-based financial discrimination, while critics may argue it intrudes on private underwriting discretion, complicates risk management, and could force institutions to serve customers despite reputational, environmental, or social-risk concerns. The bill’s inclusion of abortion, gender transition services, ESG-related greenhouse gas targets, and diversity/race audits suggests the strongest disagreements may center on culture-war and ESG policy issues, as well as the potential burden of litigation and mandatory disclosures.