AB 2028: Deferred deposit transactions: assessments.
- Session Year: 2025-2026
- House: Assembly
- Latest Version Date: 2026-09-27
Current Status:
Passed
(2026-09-27: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 573, Statutes of 2026.)
Introduced
In Committee
Awaiting First Chamber Vote
Passed First Chamber
In Committee
Awaiting Second Chamber Vote
Passed Second Chamber
Enacted
What does this bill do?
The bill requires businesses licensed to make deferred deposit (payday) transactions to receive any invoice or assessment notice that shows the pro rata calculation used to set their yearly assessment (their share of costs based on their share of total transactions). The notice must list each component as a separate line item, including total estimated administration costs, any deficit, the aggregate dollar amount of transactions by all licensees, the licensee’s own transaction total, and the number of licensed locations.
The summary is provided by generative AI which can make mistakes. For original language, please view the details in the table below.
The California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law generally provides for the licensure and regulation by the Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation of a person who engages in the business of making deferred deposit transactions. The law requires each licensee to pay to the commissioner its pro rata share of all costs and expenses reasonably incurred in the administration of the law, as specified.
This bill would require an invoice or assessment notice issued by the commissioner to a licensee pursuant to the provisions described above to include the pro rata amount calculation used to determine the amount due and payable by the licensee, as specified.
This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 23016 of the Financial Code proposed by AB 2795 to be operative only if this bill and AB 2795 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
The California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law generally provides for the licensure and regulation by the Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation of a person who engages in the business of making deferred deposit transactions. The law requires each licensee to pay to the commissioner its pro rata share of all costs and expenses reasonably incurred in the administration of the law, as specified.
This bill would require an invoice or assessment notice issued by the commissioner to a licensee pursuant to the provisions described above to include the pro rata amount calculation used to determine the amount due and payable by the licensee, as specified.
This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 23016 of the Financial Code proposed by AB 2795 to be operative only if this bill and AB 2795 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
The California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law generally provides for the licensure and regulation by the Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation of a person who engages in the business of making deferred deposit transactions. The law requires each licensee to pay to the commissioner its pro rata share of all costs and expenses reasonably incurred in the administration of the law, as specified.
This bill would require an invoice or assessment notice issued by the commissioner to a licensee pursuant to the provisions described above to include the pro rata amount calculation used to determine the amount due and payable by the licensee, as specified.
This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 23016 of the Financial Code proposed by AB 2795 to be operative only if this bill and AB 2795 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
The California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law generally provides for the licensure and regulation by the Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation of a person who engages in the business of making deferred deposit transactions. The law requires each licensee to pay to the commissioner its pro rata share of all costs and expenses reasonably incurred in the administration of the law, as specified.
This bill would require an invoice or assessment notice issued by the commissioner to a licensee pursuant to the provisions described above to include the pro rata amount calculation used to determine the amount due and payable by the licensee, as specified.
The California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law generally provides for the licensure and regulation by the Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation of a person who engages in the business of making deferred deposit transactions. The law requires each licensee to pay to the commissioner its pro rata share of all costs and expenses reasonably incurred in the administration of the law, as specified.
This bill would require an invoice or assessment notice issued by the commissioner to a licensee pursuant to the provisions described above to include the pro rata amount calculation used to determine the amount due and payable by the licensee, as specified.
(a)(1)Each licensee shall pay to the commissioner its pro rata share of all costs and expenses reasonably incurred in the administration of this division, as estimated by the commissioner, for the ensuing year and any deficit actually incurred or anticipated in the administration of the program in the year in which the assessment is made.
(2)The pro rata share shall be the proportion that a licensees total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions made bears to the aggregate total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions made by all licensees as shown by the annual reports to the commissioner pursuant to Section 23026.
(3)Notwithstanding paragraph (2), a licensee shall neither be assessed for nor be permitted to pay less than five hundred dollars ($500) per licensed location per year.
(b)On or before the 20th day of May in each year, the commissioner shall notify each licensee by mail of the amount assessed and levied against it and that amount shall be paid within 30 days thereafter. If payment is not made within 30 days, the commissioner may assess and collect a penalty, in addition to the assessment, of 1 percent of the assessment for each month or part of a month that the payment is delayed or withheld.
(c)If a licensee fails to pay the assessment on or before the 30th day of June following the day upon which payment is due, the commissioner may by order summarily suspend or revoke the certificate issued to the licensee. If, after an order is made, a request for hearing is filed in writing within 30 days, and a hearing is not held within 60 days thereafter, the order is deemed rescinded as of its effective date. During any period when its certificate is revoked or suspended, a licensee shall not conduct business pursuant to this division except as may be permitted by order of the commissioner. However, the revocation, suspension, or surrender of a certificate shall not affect the powers of the commissioner as provided in this division.
(d)An invoice or assessment notice issued by the commissioner to a licensee pursuant to this section shall include the pro rata amount calculation used to determine the amount due and payable by the licensee with each component listed as a separate line item, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(1)The total costs and expenses reasonably incurred in the administration of this division, as estimated by the commissioner, for the ensuing year.
(2)Any deficit actually incurred or anticipated in the administration of the program in the year in which the assessment is made.
(3)The aggregate total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions made by all licensees.
(4)The licensees total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions.
(5)The number of license locations operated by the licensee.
SEC. 1.5.Section 23016 of the Financial Code is amended to read:23016.(a)(1)Each licensee shall pay to the commissioner its pro rata share of all costs and expenses reasonably incurred in the administration of this division, as estimated by the commissioner, for the ensuing year and any deficit actually incurred or anticipated in the administration of the program in the year in which the assessment is made.
(2)The pro rata share shall be the proportion that a licensees total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions made bears to the aggregate total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions made by all licensees as shown by the annual reports to the commissioner pursuant to Section 23026.
(3)Notwithstanding paragraph (2), a licensee shall neither be assessed for nor be permitted to pay less than five hundred dollars ($500) per licensed location per year.
(b)On or before the 20th day of May in each year, the commissioner shall notify each licensee of the amount assessed and levied against it and that amount shall be paid within 30 days thereafter. If payment is not made within 30 days, the commissioner may assess and collect a penalty, in addition to the assessment, of 1 percent of the assessment for each month or part of a month that the payment is delayed or withheld.
(c)If a licensee fails to pay the assessment on or before the 30th day of June following the day upon which payment is due, the commissioner may by order summarily suspend or revoke the certificate issued to the licensee. If, after an order is made, a request for hearing is filed in writing within 30 days, and a hearing is not held within 60 days thereafter, the order is deemed rescinded as of its effective date. During any period when its certificate is revoked or suspended, a licensee shall not conduct business pursuant to this division except as may be permitted by order of the commissioner. However, the revocation, suspension, or surrender of a certificate shall not affect the powers of the commissioner as provided in this division.
(d)An invoice or assessment notice issued by the commissioner to a licensee pursuant to this section shall include the pro rata amount calculation used to determine the amount due and payable by the licensee with each component listed as a separate line item, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(1)The total costs and expenses reasonably incurred in the administration of this division, as estimated by the commissioner, for the ensuing year.
(2)Any deficit actually incurred or anticipated in the administration of the program in the year in which the assessment is made.
(3)The aggregate total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions made by all licensees.
(4)The licensees total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions.
(5)The number of license locations operated by the licensee.
SEC. 2.Section 1.5 of this bill incorporates amendments to Section 23016 of the Financial Code proposed by both this bill and Assembly Bill 2795. That section of this bill shall only become operative if (1) both bills are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2027, (2) each bill amends Section 23016 of the Financial Code, and (3) this bill is enacted after Assembly Bill 2795, in which case Section 1 of this bill shall not become operative.
(a)(1)Each licensee shall pay to the commissioner its pro rata share of all costs and expenses reasonably incurred in the administration of this division, as estimated by the commissioner, for the ensuing year and any deficit actually incurred or anticipated in the administration of the program in the year in which the assessment is made.
(2)The pro rata share shall be the proportion that a licensees total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions made bears to the aggregate total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions made by all licensees as shown by the annual reports to the commissioner pursuant to Section 23026.
(3)Notwithstanding paragraph (2), a licensee shall neither be assessed for nor be permitted to pay less than five hundred dollars ($500) per licensed location per year.
(b)On or before the 20th day of May in each year, the commissioner shall notify each licensee by mail of the amount assessed and levied against it and that amount shall be paid within 30 days thereafter. If payment is not made within 30 days, the commissioner may assess and collect a penalty, in addition to the assessment, of 1 percent of the assessment for each month or part of a month that the payment is delayed or withheld.
(c)If a licensee fails to pay the assessment on or before the 30th day of June following the day upon which payment is due, the commissioner may by order summarily suspend or revoke the certificate issued to the licensee. If, after an order is made, a request for hearing is filed in writing within 30 days, and a hearing is not held within 60 days thereafter, the order is deemed rescinded as of its effective date. During any period when its certificate is revoked or suspended, a licensee shall not conduct business pursuant to this division except as may be permitted by order of the commissioner. However, the revocation, suspension, or surrender of a certificate shall not affect the powers of the commissioner as provided in this division.
(d)An invoice or assessment notice issued by the commissioner to a licensee pursuant to this section shall include the pro rata amount calculation used to determine the amount due and payable by the licensee with each component listed as a separate line item, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(1)The total costs and expenses reasonably incurred in the administration of this division, as estimated by the commissioner, for the ensuing year.
(2)Any deficit actually incurred or anticipated in the administration of the program in the year in which the assessment is made.
(3)The aggregate total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions made by all licensees.
(4)The licensees total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions.
(5)The number of license locations operated by the licensee.
SEC. 1.5.Section 23016 of the Financial Code is amended to read:23016.(a)(1)Each licensee shall pay to the commissioner its pro rata share of all costs and expenses reasonably incurred in the administration of this division, as estimated by the commissioner, for the ensuing year and any deficit actually incurred or anticipated in the administration of the program in the year in which the assessment is made.
(2)The pro rata share shall be the proportion that a licensees total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions made bears to the aggregate total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions made by all licensees as shown by the annual reports to the commissioner pursuant to Section 23026.
(3)Notwithstanding paragraph (2), a licensee shall neither be assessed for nor be permitted to pay less than five hundred dollars ($500) per licensed location per year.
(b)On or before the 20th day of May in each year, the commissioner shall notify each licensee of the amount assessed and levied against it and that amount shall be paid within 30 days thereafter. If payment is not made within 30 days, the commissioner may assess and collect a penalty, in addition to the assessment, of 1 percent of the assessment for each month or part of a month that the payment is delayed or withheld.
(c)If a licensee fails to pay the assessment on or before the 30th day of June following the day upon which payment is due, the commissioner may by order summarily suspend or revoke the certificate issued to the licensee. If, after an order is made, a request for hearing is filed in writing within 30 days, and a hearing is not held within 60 days thereafter, the order is deemed rescinded as of its effective date. During any period when its certificate is revoked or suspended, a licensee shall not conduct business pursuant to this division except as may be permitted by order of the commissioner. However, the revocation, suspension, or surrender of a certificate shall not affect the powers of the commissioner as provided in this division.
(d)An invoice or assessment notice issued by the commissioner to a licensee pursuant to this section shall include the pro rata amount calculation used to determine the amount due and payable by the licensee with each component listed as a separate line item, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(1)The total costs and expenses reasonably incurred in the administration of this division, as estimated by the commissioner, for the ensuing year.
(2)Any deficit actually incurred or anticipated in the administration of the program in the year in which the assessment is made.
(3)The aggregate total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions made by all licensees.
(4)The licensees total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions.
(5)The number of license locations operated by the licensee.
SEC. 2.Section 1.5 of this bill incorporates amendments to Section 23016 of the Financial Code proposed by both this bill and Assembly Bill 2795. That section of this bill shall only become operative if (1) both bills are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2027, (2) each bill amends Section 23016 of the Financial Code, and (3) this bill is enacted after Assembly Bill 2795, in which case Section 1 of this bill shall not become operative.
(a)(1)Each licensee shall pay to the commissioner its pro rata share of all costs and expenses reasonably incurred in the administration of this division, as estimated by the commissioner, for the ensuing year and any deficit actually incurred or anticipated in the administration of the program in the year in which the assessment is made.
(2)The pro rata share shall be the proportion that a licensees total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions made bears to the aggregate total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions made by all licensees as shown by the annual reports to the commissioner pursuant to Section 23026.
(3)Notwithstanding paragraph (2), a licensee shall neither be assessed for nor be permitted to pay less than five hundred dollars ($500) per licensed location per year.
(b)On or before the 20th day of May in each year, the commissioner shall notify each licensee by mail of the amount assessed and levied against it and that amount shall be paid within 30 days thereafter. If payment is not made within 30 days, the commissioner may assess and collect a penalty, in addition to the assessment, of 1 percent of the assessment for each month or part of a month that the payment is delayed or withheld.
(c)If a licensee fails to pay the assessment on or before the 30th day of June following the day upon which payment is due, the commissioner may by order summarily suspend or revoke the certificate issued to the licensee. If, after an order is made, a request for hearing is filed in writing within 30 days, and a hearing is not held within 60 days thereafter, the order is deemed rescinded as of its effective date. During any period when its certificate is revoked or suspended, a licensee shall not conduct business pursuant to this division except as may be permitted by order of the commissioner. However, the revocation, suspension, or surrender of a certificate shall not affect the powers of the commissioner as provided in this division.
(d)An invoice or assessment notice issued by the commissioner to a licensee pursuant to this section shall include the pro rata amount calculation used to determine the amount due and payable by the licensee with each component listed as a separate line item, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(1)The total costs and expenses reasonably incurred in the administration of this division, as estimated by the commissioner, for the ensuing year.
(2)Any deficit actually incurred or anticipated in the administration of the program in the year in which the assessment is made.
(3)The aggregate total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions made by all licensees.
(4)The licensees total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions.
(5)The number of license locations operated by the licensee.
SEC. 1.5.Section 23016 of the Financial Code is amended to read:23016.(a)(1)Each licensee shall pay to the commissioner its pro rata share of all costs and expenses reasonably incurred in the administration of this division, as estimated by the commissioner, for the ensuing year and any deficit actually incurred or anticipated in the administration of the program in the year in which the assessment is made.
(2)The pro rata share shall be the proportion that a licensees total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions made bears to the aggregate total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions made by all licensees as shown by the annual reports to the commissioner pursuant to Section 23026.
(3)Notwithstanding paragraph (2), a licensee shall neither be assessed for nor be permitted to pay less than five hundred dollars ($500) per licensed location per year.
(b)On or before the 20th day of May in each year, the commissioner shall notify each licensee by mail of the amount assessed and levied against it and that amount shall be paid within 30 days thereafter. If payment is not made within 30 days, the commissioner may assess and collect a penalty, in addition to the assessment, of 1 percent of the assessment for each month or part of a month that the payment is delayed or withheld.
(c)If a licensee fails to pay the assessment on or before the 30th day of June following the day upon which payment is due, the commissioner may by order summarily suspend or revoke the certificate issued to the licensee. If, after an order is made, a request for hearing is filed in writing within 30 days, and a hearing is not held within 60 days thereafter, the order is deemed rescinded as of its effective date. During any period when its certificate is revoked or suspended, a licensee shall not conduct business pursuant to this division except as may be permitted by order of the commissioner. However, the revocation, suspension, or surrender of a certificate shall not affect the powers of the commissioner as provided in this division.
(d)An invoice or assessment notice issued by the commissioner to a licensee pursuant to this section shall include the pro rata amount calculation used to determine the amount due and payable by the licensee with each component listed as a separate line item, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(1)The total costs and expenses reasonably incurred in the administration of this division, as estimated by the commissioner, for the ensuing year.
(2)Any deficit actually incurred or anticipated in the administration of the program in the year in which the assessment is made.
(3)The aggregate total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions made by all licensees.
(4)The licensees total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions.
(5)The number of license locations operated by the licensee.
SEC. 2.Section 1.5 of this bill incorporates amendments to Section 23016 of the Financial Code proposed by both this bill and Assembly Bill 2795. That section of this bill shall only become operative if (1) both bills are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2027, (2) each bill amends Section 23016 of the Financial Code, and (3) this bill is enacted after Assembly Bill 2795, in which case Section 1 of this bill shall not become operative.
(a)(1)Each licensee shall pay to the commissioner its pro rata share of all costs and expenses reasonably incurred in the administration of this division, as estimated by the commissioner, for the ensuing year and any deficit actually incurred or anticipated in the administration of the program in the year in which the assessment is made.
(2)The pro rata share shall be the proportion that a licensees total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions made bears to the aggregate total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions made by all licensees as shown by the annual reports to the commissioner pursuant to Section 23026.
(3)Notwithstanding paragraph (2), a licensee shall neither be assessed for nor be permitted to pay less than five hundred dollars ($500) per licensed location per year.
(b)On or before the 20th day of May in each year, the commissioner shall notify each licensee by mail of the amount assessed and levied against it and that amount shall be paid within 30 days thereafter. If payment is not made within 30 days, the commissioner may assess and collect a penalty, in addition to the assessment, of 1 percent of the assessment for each month or part of a month that the payment is delayed or withheld.
(c)If a licensee fails to pay the assessment on or before the 30th day of June following the day upon which payment is due, the commissioner may by order summarily suspend or revoke the certificate issued to the licensee. If, after an order is made, a request for hearing is filed in writing within 30 days, and a hearing is not held within 60 days thereafter, the order is deemed rescinded as of its effective date. During any period when its certificate is revoked or suspended, a licensee shall not conduct business pursuant to this division except as may be permitted by order of the commissioner. However, the revocation, suspension, or surrender of a certificate shall not affect the powers of the commissioner as provided in this division.
(d)An invoice or assessment notice issued by the commissioner to a licensee pursuant to this section shall include the pro rata amount calculation used to determine the amount due and payable by the licensee with each component listed as a separate line item, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(1)The total costs and expenses reasonably incurred in the administration of this division, as estimated by the commissioner, for the ensuing year.
(2)Any deficit actually incurred or anticipated in the administration of the program in the year in which the assessment is made.
(3)The aggregate total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions made by all licensees.
(4)The licensees total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions.
(5)The number of license locations operated by the licensee.
(a)(1)Each licensee shall pay to the commissioner its pro rata share of all costs and expenses reasonably incurred in the administration of this division, as estimated by the commissioner, for the ensuing year and any deficit actually incurred or anticipated in the administration of the program in the year in which the assessment is made.
(2)The pro rata share shall be the proportion that a licensees total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions made bears to the aggregate total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions made by all licensees as shown by the annual reports to the commissioner pursuant to Section 23026.
(3)Notwithstanding paragraph (2), a licensee shall neither be assessed for nor be permitted to pay less than five hundred dollars ($500) per licensed location per year.
(b)On or before the 20th day of May in each year, the commissioner shall notify each licensee by mail of the amount assessed and levied against it and that amount shall be paid within 30 days thereafter. If payment is not made within 30 days, the commissioner may assess and collect a penalty, in addition to the assessment, of 1 percent of the assessment for each month or part of a month that the payment is delayed or withheld.
(c)If a licensee fails to pay the assessment on or before the 30th day of June following the day upon which payment is due, the commissioner may by order summarily suspend or revoke the certificate issued to the licensee. If, after an order is made, a request for hearing is filed in writing within 30 days, and a hearing is not held within 60 days thereafter, the order is deemed rescinded as of its effective date. During any period when its certificate is revoked or suspended, a licensee shall not conduct business pursuant to this division except as may be permitted by order of the commissioner. However, the revocation, suspension, or surrender of a certificate shall not affect the powers of the commissioner as provided in this division.
(d)An invoice or assessment notice issued by the commissioner to a licensee pursuant to this section shall include the pro rata amount calculation used to determine the amount due and payable by the licensee with each component listed as a separate line item, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(1)The total costs and expenses reasonably incurred in the administration of this division, as estimated by the commissioner, for the ensuing year.
(2)Any deficit actually incurred or anticipated in the administration of the program in the year in which the assessment is made.
(3)The aggregate total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions made by all licensees.
(4)The licensees total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions.
(5)The number of license locations operated by the licensee.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Sep 27, 2026 | Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 573, Statutes of 2026. |
| Sep 27, 2026 | Approved by the Governor. |
| Sep 10, 2026 | Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3 p.m. |
| Aug 30, 2026 | Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 78. Noes 0.). |
| Aug 30, 2026 | Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 6851.). |
| Aug 30, 2026 | Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. |
| Aug 27, 2026 | In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. |
| Aug 27, 2026 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 40. Noes 0.). |
| Aug 24, 2026 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Aug 20, 2026 | Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading. |
| Aug 20, 2026 | Ordered to third reading. |
| Aug 20, 2026 | Action rescinded whereby the bill was read third time, passed, and to Assembly. |
| Aug 13, 2026 | In Senate. Held at Desk. |
| Aug 13, 2026 | Withdrawn from Engrossing and Enrolling. |
| Aug 13, 2026 | Ordered to the Senate. |
| Aug 11, 2026 | In Assembly. Ordered to Engrossing and Enrolling. |
| Aug 10, 2026 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 39. Noes 0.). |
| Aug 10, 2026 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 5322.). |
| Aug 4, 2026 | Read second time. Ordered to Consent Calendar. |
| Aug 3, 2026 | From committee: Be ordered to second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8 and ordered to Consent Calendar. |
| Jun 18, 2026 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (June 17). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| May 27, 2026 | Referred to Com. on B. & F.I. |
| May 14, 2026 | In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. |
| May 14, 2026 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 77. Noes 0.) |
| May 14, 2026 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 77. Noes 0. Page 5054.) |
| May 7, 2026 | Read second time. Ordered to Consent Calendar. |
| May 6, 2026 | From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (May 6). |
| Apr 23, 2026 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (April 23). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Mar 2, 2026 | Referred to Com. on B. & F. |
| Feb 18, 2026 | From printer. May be heard in committee March 20. |
| Feb 17, 2026 | Read first time. To print. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 30, 2026 | AB 2028 Chen Concurrence in Senate Amendments | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| Aug 27, 2026 | Assembly 3rd Reading AB2028 Chen By Choi | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| Aug 10, 2026 | Consent Calendar 2nd AB2028 Chen | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| Jun 17, 2026 | Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] with the recommendation: To Consent Calendar | Senate Standing Committee on Banking and Financial Institutions |
Passed |
|
| May 14, 2026 | AB 2028 Chen Consent Calendar Second Day Regular Session | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| May 6, 2026 | Do pass. To Consent Calendar. | Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Apr 23, 2026 | Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] with recommendation: To Consent Calendar | Assembly Standing Committee on Banking and Finance |
Passed |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
|
Organization
|
Position
|
Date
|
|---|---|---|
| California Financial Service Providers | ** Support |
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
CSA1 Bill Id:AB 2028
Author:(Chen)
As Amended Ver:August 20, 2026
Majority vote
SUMMARY
This bill requires the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) to provide the pro rata amount calculation used to determine the amount due and payable by a deferred deposit licensee in itemized program totals.
Senate Amendments
Technical amendments to address potential conflict with another bill amending the same section of code.
COMMENTS
- Background
The DFPI is California′s primary regulator for financial services, products, and professionals. The Department was formed by expanding the then existing Department of Business Oversight in 2020. The DFPI expanded its programmatic responsibilities due to the following legislative mandates:
- California Consumer Financial Protection Law, 2021 (CCFPL), Chapter 157, Statutes of 2020 (AB 1864); effective January 1, 2021, gives the DFPI new regulatory responsibilities to protect consumers from unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices committed by previously unlicensed regulated entities. These may include industries that currently exist unregulated in California or new products or services that may enter the market in the future.
- Debt Collectors Licensing Act, 2022, Chapter 163, Statutes of 2020 (SB 908); effective January 1, 2022, gives the DFPI new regulatory responsibilities to provide licensure, regulation, and oversight of California debt collection practices.
- Digital Financial Assets Law, 2023 Chapters 792 and 871, Statutes of 2023 (AB 39 and SB 401); effective July 1, 2025, gives the DFPI new regulatory responsibilities to provide licensure, regulation, and oversight of digital asset activities in California.
The convergence of these additional programmatic mandates and historical stagnancy in fee and assessment rates significantly strained the Department′s fiscal solvency. In an effort to ensure long-term fiscal sustainability, the DFPI engaged an external consultant for a comprehensive fiscal and cost allocation plan analysis; subsequently, the Crow study was produced.
According to the Crowe study, DFPI′s FY 2024-25 total budget is covered by the following sources:
- Financial Protection Fund covers approximately $159.4 million (89.5%) of the DFPI′s total budget and supports the Investment, Lender-Fiduciary, Licensing and Supervision of Banks and Trust Companies, Money Transmitters, California Consumer Financial Protection, Debt Collectors, and Digital Financial Assets Programs.
- Credit Union Fund covers approximately $14.5 million (8.1%) of the DFPI′s total budget and supports the Credit Unions Program.
- Financial Empowerment Fund covers approximately $2.3 million (1.3%) of the DFPI′s total budget and supports the CalMoney Smart Program.
- Local Agency Deposit Security Fund covers approximately $0.6 million (0.4%) of the DFPI′s total budget and supports the Administration of Local Agency Security Program.
- Reimbursements covers approximately $1.3 million (0.7%) of the DFPI′s total budget and provides limited support for the Licensing and Supervision of Banks and Trust Companies and Credit Unions Programs.[1]
- Results and Recommendations from the Independent Financial Review of the DFPI
The findings with regard to established programs from the Crowe study are: ″The DFPI requires an additional $80.4 million through FY 2027-28 to support its programmatic needs for the Investment, Lender-Fiduciary, Banking, and Money Transmitters Programs. With regard to the deferred deposit transactions program, the study recommended the following:
The Deferred Deposit Transaction subprogram required $3.1 million in additional revenue through FY 2027-28. The Deferred Deposit Transaction (DDT) subprogram′s needs could be met by increasing its fees by 68%. The proposed fee adjustment would generate an additional $3.0 million in assessments, and minimal amounts in application fees and fingerprint fees. In addition, the 50% increase to the Deferred Deposit Transaction exam fee to $120 per hour beginning in FY 2024-25 would generate an additional $63 thousand through FY 2027-28. The study also recommended that the Department may want to consider delaying assessment changes until pending legislation (AB 3148) is finalized.[2]
- AB 3148 (2024)
In 2024, a coalition deferred deposit transaction licensees sponsored AB 3148, a bill to change pro rata assessment calculation methods from number of locations to total dollar amount. The coalition described the issue as:
″Current law requires fees for California Deferred Deposit Transaction (CDDTL) licensees to be paid based on the number of locations the licensee has in the state of California. While CDDTL transactions have decreased overall, the number of brick-and-mortar locations for CDDTL transactions has significantly declined over the last several years, while online transactions have continued to grow over the same period.
At the same time, DFPI costs to administer the CDDTL program have continued to rise. The current fee structure has led to an increase in fees for licensees with brick-and-mortar locations, regardless of the volume of business conducted at each of these locations, as compared to the number of transactions conducted online.
AB 3148 addresses the issue described above by requiring DFPI to assess fees to CDDTL licensees based on the volume of business conducted by the licensee in the state versus the number of locations the licensee may have. Doing so accomplishes several purposes:
- Ensures licensees with brick-and-mortar locations are paying fees commensurate with their volume of business and not subsidizing online transaction providers with few or no locations in the state, but with large transaction volumes.
- Aligns CDDTL fees paid to DFPI with DFPI workload associated with each licensee.
- Aligns the CDDTL licensing fee structure with other DFPI licensing programs.″
However, the change to assessments based on total dollar amount of transactions from the number of store locations appears to have significantly changed the dollar amount of the assessments. Deferred deposit licensees describe the current issue:
″In 2024, DFPI released a report establishing that several of the department′s programs have been operating with a structural deficit. This report only determined the size of their existing deficits and did not explore whether the department′s costs were reasonable. As a result of this report, the department increased the DDT program′s hourly examination fees, a separate fee from the annual assessment, by 50% to cover existing deficits.
Last year, each licensee was unexpectedly faced with an annual assessment that was much higher than anticipated. Not only did DFPI neglect to provide licensees with any warning before issuing invoices, but the department also refused to provide an explanation afterwards. Licensees were left unable to determine whether higher costs stemmed from increased program expenses, deficit recovery, or other factors. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for the industry to budget and plan for future operations, a key component of running a business.
These assessment increases occurred while the DDT industry has been shrinking for years due to competition from unregulated offshore lenders. This year, total assessments collected by DFPI were higher than they were a decade ago despite total loan volume in 2024 being 60% lower than in 2015. In concert with fewer licensees and fewer locations over the same time frame, this has tripled the per-location cost burden. It is unreasonable for a regulator to continue raising fees on a shrinking industry without any transparency as to its motivations or the necessity to do so.″
There is no evidence of assessment increases based on the Crowe study, however, if such increases were made, it would be within the purview of the Commissioner to do so under existing law.
- What this bill does
This bill requires the Department to provide each licensee information needed to determine accuracy of their assessment.
- The total costs and expenses reasonably incurred in the administration of this division, as estimated by the commissioner, for the ensuing year.
- Any deficit actually incurred or anticipated in the administration of the program in the year in which the assessment is made.
- The aggregate total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions made by all licensees.
- The licensee′s total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions.
- The number of license locations operated by the licensee.
However, if the goal is to determine if there is a mistake in a licensee′s assessment, the author may wish to consider amending item d) to ″The licensee′s total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions as used to determine the pro rata amount due from the licensee.″ Identifying the figure used by the Department may help identify misalignment if the total amount actually used by the Department is different than the total amount the licensee thought would be used.
- Senate Amendments
No substantive amendments were made. Only double jointing language was added to as a technical safeguard to manage signing order issues and preserve the language of the bill.
According to the Author
This measure requires the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation to provide a clear explanation of how a Deferred Deposit Transaction licensee′s annual fee assessment is calculated when issuing an invoice. The goal is to improve transparency and allow licensees to better understand and anticipate their regulatory costs.
Arguments in Support
″AB 2028 improves transparency by requiring DFPI to include the calculation used to determine each licensee′s assessment directly on the invoice. This basic disclosure is already provided to other DFPI-regulated programs. Providing this information to the regulated community would allow licensees to clearly understand how their fees are determined and anticipate operating costs in coming years.
This measure does not require DFPI to perform any new analysis or develop new systems. The department already calculates these figures to set assessments and provides similar disclosures in other programs. AB 2028 simply requires DFPI to share the information it already uses, bringing transparency and predictability to the DDT assessment process.″ California Financial Service Providers
Arguments in Opposition
None received. Last certified 8/27/2026
FISCAL COMMENTS
Minor and absorbable costs to DFPI to update invoice and assessment notices with pro rata calculation information.
VOTES:
ASM BANKING AND FINANCE: 9-0-0
YES: Valencia, Chen, Dixon, Fong, Krell, Michelle Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Schiavo, Harabedian
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 14-0-1
YES: Wicks, Hoover, Aguiar-Curry, Caloza, Dixon, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Ta, Tangipa
ABS, ABST OR NV: Arambula
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0-3
YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas
ABS, ABST OR NV: Arambula, Flora, Celeste Rodriguez
SENATE FLOOR: 39-0-1
YES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener
ABS, ABST OR NV: Alvarado-Gil
UPDATED
VERSION: August 20, 2026
CONSULTANT: Desiree Nguyen Orth / B. & F. / (916) 319-3081 FN: 0004400
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-4171 | AB 2028 |
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2028
Author: Chen (R)
Amended: 8/20/26 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE BANKING & F.I. COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/17/26
AYES: Grayson, Niello, Cervantes, Hurtado, Reyes, Richardson, Strickland
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SENATE FLOOR: 39-0, 8/10/26 (Consent)
AYES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener
NO VOTE RECORDED: Alvarado-Gil
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 5/14/26 (Consent) - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Deferred deposit transactions: assessments
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST:
This bill requires the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) to include specified information in an invoice or assessment notice related to the annual pro rata assessment levied on licensees of the California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/20/26 address potential chaptering conflicts with AB 2795. The amendments are nonsubstantive.
ANALYSIS:
Existing Law:
- Provides the California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law (DDTL), a licensing framework administered by the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) that regulates the provision of deferred deposit transactions (more commonly known as “payday loans”). (Division 10 of the Financial Code, commencing with Section § 23000)
- Requires each licensee to pay its pro rata share of all costs and expenses incurred by DFPI in administering the DDTL, as specified. Provides that the assessment is the proportion that a licensee’s total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions made bears to the aggregate total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions made by all DDTL licensees, as specified. Provides a minimum assessment amount of $250 per licensed location per year. (Financial Code Section § 23016)
This bill:
- Requires DFPI to provide the following information in an invoice or assessment notice issued to a DDTL licensee:
- The total costs and expenses reasonably incurred in the administration of this division, as estimated by the commissioner, for the ensuing year.
- Any deficit actually incurred or anticipated in the administration of the program in the year in which the assessment is made.
- The aggregate total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions made by all licensees.
- The licensee’s total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions.
- The number of license locations operated by the licensee.
Comments
The DFPI licenses and oversees a variety of businesses in the financial services industry, such as state-chartered banks and credit unions, money transmitters, nonbank lenders, mortgage lenders, debt collectors, and payday lenders. The costs incurred by DFPI in regulating these businesses are recovered through fees and assessments charged to licensed businesses. Rather than requiring the General Fund to cover these expenses, the regulated entities bear the costs.
The DDTL is a licensing law that covers lenders providing certain short-term credit instruments, familiarly known as “payday loans.” In 2024, the author of this bill authored AB 3148 (Chen, Chapter 252, Statutes of 2024) which shifted the apportionment of annual assessments under the DDTL from one based on physical locations to a pro rata model based primarily on a licensee’s share of payday loans originated in the prior year. This change had the effect of increasing costs for payday lenders operating exclusively online while reducing costs for lenders that rely primarily on brick-and-mortar storefronts to originate payday loans.
The California Financial Service Providers (CFSP) is a trade association representing payday lenders and supporters of this bill. CFSP states the rationale for this bill in its support letter:
Last year, each licensee was unexpectedly faced with an annual assessment that was much higher than anticipated. Not only did DFPI neglect to provide licensees with any warning before issuing invoices, but the department also refused to provide an explanation afterwards. Licensees were left unable to determine whether higher costs stemmed from increased program expenses, deficit recovery, or other factors. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for the industry to budget and plan for future operations, a key component of running a business.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
This bill was reported out of Senate Appropriations Committee pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.
SUPPORT: (Verified 8/19/26)
California Financial Service Providers
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/19/26)
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 5/14/26
AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas
NO VOTE RECORDED: Arambula, Flora, Celeste Rodriguez
Prepared by: Michael Burdick / B. & F.I. /
8/24/26 14:01:42
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-4171 | AB 2028 |
CONSENT
Bill No: AB 2028
Author: Chen (R)
Introduced: 2/17/26
Vote: 21
SENATE BANKING & F.I. COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/17/26
AYES: Grayson, Niello, Cervantes, Hurtado, Reyes, Richardson, Strickland
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 5/14/26 (Consent) - See last page for vote
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT: Deferred deposit transactions: assessments
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST:
This bill requires the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) to include specified information in an invoice or assessment notice related to the annual pro rata assessment levied on licensees of the California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law.
ANALYSIS:
Existing Law:
- Provides the California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law (DDTL), a licensing framework administered by the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) that regulates the provision of deferred deposit transactions (more commonly known as “payday loans”). (Division 10 of the Financial Code, commencing with Section § 23000)
- Requires each licensee to pay its pro rata share of all costs and expenses incurred by DFPI in administering the DDTL, as specified. Provides that the assessment is the proportion that a licensee’s total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions made bears to the aggregate total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions made by all DDTL licensees, as specified. Provides a minimum assessment amount of $250 per licensed location per year. (Financial Code Section § 23016)
This bill:
- Requires DFPI to provide the following information in an invoice or assessment notice issued to a DDTL licensee:
- The total costs and expenses reasonably incurred in the administration of this division, as estimated by the commissioner, for the ensuing year.
- Any deficit actually incurred or anticipated in the administration of the program in the year in which the assessment is made.
- The aggregate total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions made by all licensees.
- The licensee’s total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions.
- The number of license locations operated by the licensee.
Comments
The DFPI licenses and oversees a variety of businesses in the financial services industry, such as state-chartered banks and credit unions, money transmitters, nonbank lenders, mortgage lenders, debt collectors, and payday lenders. The costs incurred by DFPI in regulating these businesses are recovered through fees and assessments charged to licensed businesses. Rather than requiring the General Fund to cover these expenses, the regulated entities bear the costs.
The DDTL is a licensing law that covers lenders providing certain short-term credit instruments, familiarly known as “payday loans.” In 2024, the author of this bill authored AB 3148 (Chen, Chapter 252, Statutes of 2024) which shifted the apportionment of annual assessments under the DDTL from one based on physical locations to a pro rata model based primarily on a licensee’s share of payday loans originated in the prior year. This change had the effect of increasing costs for payday lenders operating exclusively online while reducing costs for lenders that rely primarily on brick-and-mortar storefronts to originate payday loans.
The California Financial Service Providers (CFSP) is a trade association representing payday lenders and supporters of this bill. CFSP states the rationale for this bill in its support letter:
Last year, each licensee was unexpectedly faced with an annual assessment that was much higher than anticipated. Not only did DFPI neglect to provide licensees with any warning before issuing invoices, but the department also refused to provide an explanation afterwards. Licensees were left unable to determine whether higher costs stemmed from increased program expenses, deficit recovery, or other factors. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for the industry to budget and plan for future operations, a key component of running a business.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 8/3/26)
California Financial Service Providers
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/3/26)
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 5/14/26
AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas
NO VOTE RECORDED: Arambula, Flora, Celeste Rodriguez
Prepared by: Michael Burdick / B. & F.I. /
8/5/26 15:04:08
**** END ****
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
BANKING AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Senator Timothy Grayson, Chair
2025 - 2026 Regular
Bill No: AB 2028 Hearing Date: June 17, 2026
Author: | Chen | ||
Version: | February 17, 2026 Introduced | ||
Urgency: | No | Fiscal: | Yes |
Consultant: | Michael Burdick | ||
Subject: Deferred deposit transactions: assessments
SUMMARY
This bill requires the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) to include specified information in an invoice or assessment notice related to the annual pro rata assessment levied on licensees of the California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law.
EXISTING LAW
- Provides the California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law (DDTL), a licensing framework administered by the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) that regulates the provision of deferred deposit transactions (more commonly known as “payday loans”). (Division 10 of the Financial Code, commencing with Section 23000)
- Requires each licensee to pay its pro rata share of all costs and expenses incurred by DFPI in administering the DDTL, as specified. Provides that the assessment is the proportion that a licensee’s total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions made bears to the aggregate total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions made by all DDTL licensees, as specified. Provides a minimum assessment amount of $250 per licensed location per year. (Financial Code Section 23016)
THIS BILL
Requires DFPI to provide the following information in an invoice or assessment notice issued to a DDTL licensee:
a) The total costs and expenses reasonably incurred in the administration of this division, as estimated by the commissioner, for the ensuing year.
b) Any deficit actually incurred or anticipated in the administration of the program in the year in which the assessment is made.
c) The aggregate total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions made by all licensees.
d) The licensee’s total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions.
e) The number of license locations operated by the licensee.
COMMENTS
The Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) licenses and oversees a variety of businesses in the financial services industry, such as state-chartered banks and credit unions, money transmitters, nonbank lenders, mortgage lenders, debt collectors, and payday lenders. The costs incurred by DFPI in regulating these businesses are recovered through fees and assessments charged to licensed businesses. Rather than requiring the General Fund to cover these expenses, the regulated entities bear the costs.
The Deferred Deposit Transaction Law (DDTL) is a licensing law that covers lenders providing certain short-term credit instruments, familiarly known as “payday loans.” In 2024, the author of this bill authored AB 3148 (Chen, Chapter 252, Statutes of 2024) which shifted the apportionment of annual assessments under the DDTL from one based on physical locations to a pro rata model based primarily on a licensee’s share of payday loans originated in the prior year. This change had the effect of increasing costs for payday lenders operating exclusively online while reducing costs for lenders that rely primarily on brick-and-mortar storefronts to originate payday loans.
The California Financial Service Providers (CFSP) is a trade association representing payday lenders and supporter of this bill. CFSP states the rationale for this bill in its support letter:
Last year, each licensee was unexpectedly faced with an annual assessment that was much higher than anticipated. Not only did DFPI neglect to provide licensees with any warning before issuing invoices, but the department also refused to provide an explanation afterwards. Licensees were left unable to determine whether higher costs stemmed from increased program expenses, deficit recovery, or other factors. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for the industry to budget and plan for future operations, a key component of running a business.
LIST OF REGISTERED SUPPORT/OPPOSITION
Support
California Financial Service Providers
Opposition
None received
-- END --
Date of Hearing: May 6, 2026
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Buffy Wicks, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2028
Author:(Chen) – As Introduced Ver:February 17, 2026
Policy Committee: | Banking and Finance | Vote: | 9 - 0 |
|
| ||
|
|
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill requires an invoice or assessment notice issued by the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) to a deferred deposit transaction (DDT, or payday lender) licensee for the licensee’s pro rata share of the costs and expenses of administering the California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law to include certain calculation information.
The invoice or assessment notice must include the pro rata calculation used to determine the amount owed by the licensee with each component listed as a separate line item, which includes the deficit actually incurred or anticipated for the program in the year the assessment is made, the aggregate total dollar amount of transactions made by all licensees, and the licensee’s total dollar amount transactions, among other items.
FISCAL EFFECT:
Minor and absorbable costs to DFPI to update invoice and assessment notices with pro rata calculation information.
COMMENTS:
- Purpose. According to the author, “This measure requires [DFPI] to provide a clear explanation of how a [DDT] licensee’s annual fee assessment is calculated when issuing an invoice. The goal is to improve transparency and allow licensees to better understand and anticipate their regulatory costs.” This bill is supported by the California Financial Service Providers.
- Background. Crowe Study. The recent expansion of DFPI authority and programs combined with historical stagnancy in fee and assessment rates have significantly strained DFPI’s fiscal solvency. In an effort to ensure long-term fiscal sustainability, DFPI engaged an external consultant to conduct a comprehensive fiscal and cost allocation plan analysis, now known as the Crowe study. The study found that significant revenue increases were needed across DFPI’s regulatory programs, which could be generated by various fee increases – in particular, the DDT program required $3.1 million in additional revenue through fiscal year 2027-28, which could mostly be raised by raising fees by 68%.
Pro Rata Assessments. DFPI imposes assessments for some licensees on a pro rata basis to equitably distribute program costs. Pro rata distribution may be based on the licensee’s size, number of locations, volume of business, or other factors as determined by the relevant program statute. AB 3148 (Chen), Chapter 252, Statutes of 2024, required a DDT pro rata assessment be based on the proportion of a licensee’s total dollar amount of transactions in relation to the aggregate total dollar amount of transactions made by all licensees, instead of based on the number of licensee locations. Following the change in the assessment calculation, DDT licensees experienced much higher annual assessment in 2025. This bill requires DFPI to include certain pro rata calculation information on a DDT licensee’s assessment notice or invoice.
- Related Legislation. AB 2425 (Chen) requires DFPI to provide an annual report to the Legislature about the revenues and expenditures related to various regulatory programs administered by DFPI, including DFPI’s method of determining the pro rata assessments and charges. AB 2425 is pending hearing by this committee.
Analysis Prepared by: Irene Ho / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
Date of Hearing: April 23, 2026
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND FINANCE
Avelino Valencia, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2028 (
Author:Chen) – As Introduced Ver:February 17, 2026
SUBJECT: Deferred deposit transactions: assessments
SUMMARY:
This bill requires the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) to provide the pro rata amount calculation used to determine the amount due and payable by a deferred deposit licensee in itemized program totals.
Specifically, this bill:
- Requires the DFPI to provide the pro rata amount calculation used to determine the amount due and payable by a deferred deposit licensee when it provides and invoice or assessment.
- Requires the following information:
- The total costs and expenses reasonably incurred in the administration of this division, as estimated by the commissioner, for the ensuing year.
- Any deficit actually incurred or anticipated in the administration of the program in the year in which the assessment is made.
- The aggregate total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions made by all licensees.
- The licensee’s total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions.
- The number of license locations operated by the licensee.
EXISTING LAW:
- Requires deferred deposit licensees to pay its pro rata share of all costs and expenses incurred in the administration of the program, as estimated and any deficit actually incurred or anticipated in the administration of the program in the year in which the assessment is made. Financial Code (Fin.Code) section 23016(a)(1).
- Requires the pro rata share to be the proportion of the licensees total dollar amount of the deferred transactions made to the aggregate dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions made by all licensees. Fin.Code section 23016(a)(2).
- Requires a minimum assessment of $500 per licensed location each year. Fin.Code section 23016(a)(3).
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is keyed Fiscal by Legislative Counsel.>
COMMENTS:
- Purpose
Statement from the Author
“This measure requires the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) to provide a clear explanation of how a Deferred Deposit Transaction (DDT) licensee’s annual fee assessment is calculated when issuing an invoice. The goal is to improve transparency and allow licensees to better understand and anticipate their regulatory costs.”
- Background
The DFPI is California’s primary regulator for financial services, products, and professionals. The Department was formed by expanding the then existing Department of Business Oversight in 2020. The DFPI expanded its programmatic responsibilities due to the following legislative mandates:
- California Consumer Financial Protection Law, 2021 (CCFPL), Chapter 157, Statutes of 2020 (AB 1864); effective January 1, 2021, gives the DFPI new regulatory responsibilities to protect consumers from unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices committed by previously unlicensed regulated entities. These may include industries that currently exist unregulated in California or new products or services that may enter the market in the future.
- Debt Collectors Licensing Act, 2022, Chapter 163, Statutes of 2020 (SB 908); effective January 1, 2022, gives the DFPI new regulatory responsibilities to provide licensure, regulation, and oversight of California debt collection practices.
- Digital Financial Assets Law, 2023 Chapters 792 and 871, Statutes of 2023 (AB 39 and SB 401); effective July 1, 2025, gives the DFPI new regulatory responsibilities to provide licensure, regulation, and oversight of digital asset activities in California.
The convergence of these additional programmatic mandates and historical stagnancy in fee and assessment rates significantly strained the Department's fiscal solvency. In an effort to ensure long-term fiscal sustainability, the DFPI engaged an external consultant for a comprehensive fiscal and cost allocation plan analysis; subsequently, the Crow study was produced.
According to the Crowe study, DFPI’s FY 2024-25 total budget is covered by the following sources:
- Financial Protection Fund covers approximately $159.4 million (89.5%) of the DFPI’s total budget and supports the Investment, Lender-Fiduciary, Licensing and Supervision of Banks and Trust Companies, Money Transmitters, California Consumer Financial Protection, Debt Collectors, and Digital Financial Assets Programs.
- Credit Union Fund covers approximately $14.5 million (8.1%) of the DFPI’s total budget and supports the Credit Unions Program.
- Financial Empowerment Fund covers approximately $2.3 million (1.3%) of the DFPI’s total budget and supports the CalMoney Smart Program.
- Local Agency Deposit Security Fund covers approximately $0.6 million (0.4%) of the DFPI’s total budget and supports the Administration of Local Agency Security Program.
- Reimbursements covers approximately $1.3 million (0.7%) of the DFPI’s total budget and provides limited support for the Licensing and Supervision of Banks and Trust Companies and Credit Unions Programs.[1]
- Results and Recommendations from the Independent Financial Review of the DFPI
The findings with regard to established programs from the Crowe study are: “The DFPI requires an additional $80.4 million through FY 2027-28 to support its programmatic needs for the Investment, Lender-Fiduciary, Banking, and Money Transmitters Programs. With regard to the deferred deposit transactions program, the study recommended the following:
The Deferred Deposit Transaction subprogram required $3.1 million in additional revenue through FY 2027-28. The Deferred Deposit Transaction subprogram’s needs could be met by increasing its fees by 68%. The proposed fee adjustment would generate an additional $3.0 million in assessments, and minimal amounts in application fees and fingerprint fees. In addition, the 50% increase to the Deferred Deposit Transaction exam fee to $120 per hour beginning in FY 2024-25 would generate an additional $63 thousand through FY 2027-28. The study also recommended that the Department may want to consider delaying assessment changes until pending legislation (AB 3148) is finalized.[2]
- AB 3148 (2024)
In 2024, a coalition deferred deposit transaction licensees sponsored AB 3148, a bill to change pro rata assessment calculation methods from number of locations to total dollar amount. The coalition described the issue as:
“Current law requires fees for CDDTL licensees to be paid based on the number of locations the licensee has in the state of California. While CDDTL transactions have decreased overall, the number of brick-and-mortar locations for CDDTL transactions has significantly declined over the last several years, while online transactions have continued to grow over the same period.
At the same time, DFPI costs to administer the CDDTL program have continued to rise. The current fee structure has led to an increase in fees for licensees with brick-and-mortar locations, regardless of the volume of business conducted at each of these locations, as compared to the number of transactions conducted via online.
AB 3148 addresses the issue described above by requiring DFPI to assess fees to CDDTL licensees based on the volume of business conducted by the licensee in the state versus the number of locations the licensee may have. Doing so accomplishes several purposes:
- Ensures licensees with brick-and-mortar locations are paying fees commensurate with their volume of business and not subsidizing online transaction providers with few or no locations in the state, but with large transaction volumes.
- Aligns CDDTL fees paid to DFPI with DFPI workload associated with each licensee.
- Aligns the CDDTL licensing fee structure with other DFPI licensing programs.”
The change to assessments based on total dollar amount of transactions from the number of store locations appears to have significantly changed the dollar amount of the assessments. Deferred deposit licensees describe the current issue:
“In 2024, DFPI released a report establishing that several of the department’s programs have been operating with a structural deficit. This report only determined the size of their existing deficits and did not explore whether the department’s costs were reasonable. As a result of this report, the department increased the DDT program’s hourly examination fees, a separate fee from the annual assessment, by 50% to cover existing deficits.
Last year, each licensee was unexpectedly faced with an annual assessment that was much higher than anticipated. Not only did DFPI neglect to provide licensees with any warning before issuing invoices, but the department also refused to provide an explanation afterwards. Licensees were left unable to determine whether higher costs stemmed from increased program expenses, deficit recovery, or other factors. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for the industry to budget and plan for future operations, a key component of running a business.
These assessment increases occurred while the DDT industry has been shrinking for years due to competition from unregulated offshore lenders. This year, total assessments collected by DFPI were higher than they were a decade ago despite total loan volume in 2024 being 60% lower than in 2015. In concert with fewer licensees and fewer locations over the same time frame, this has tripled the per-location cost burden. It is unreasonable for a regulator to continue raising fees on a shrinking industry without any transparency as to its motivations or the necessity to do so.”
There is no evidence of assessment increases based on the Crowe study, however, if such increases were made, it would be within the purview of the Commissioner to do so under existing law.
- What this bill does
This bill requires the Department to provide each licensee information needed to determine accuracy of their assessment.
- The total costs and expenses reasonably incurred in the administration of this division, as estimated by the commissioner, for the ensuing year.
- Any deficit actually incurred or anticipated in the administration of the program in the year in which the assessment is made.
- The aggregate total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions made by all licensees.
- The licensee’s total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions.
- The number of license locations operated by the licensee.
However, if the goal is to determine if there is a mistake in a licensee’s assessment, the author may wish to consider amending item d) to “The licensee's total dollar amount of deferred deposit transactions as used to determine the pro rata amount due from the licensee.” Identifying the figure used by the Department may help identify misalignment if the total amount actually used by the Department is different than the total amount the licensee thought would be used.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Last verified 4/21/2026
California Financial Service Providers (CFSP)
Opposition
Last verified 4/21/2026
None received.
Analysis Prepared by: Desiree Nguyen Orth / B. & F. / (916) 319-3081
Discussed in Hearing
View Older Hearings
Bill Author
Bill Co-Author(s):