AB 377 California Assembly · 2009-2010 Regular Session

Deferred deposit transactions.

Summary
Existing law, the California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law, provides for the licensure and regulation by the Commissioner of Corporations of persons engaged in the business of making or negotiating deferred deposit transactions. Existing law prohibits a licensee from making false, misleading, or deceptive advertisements regarding its business of making or negotiating deferred deposit transactions. Existing law prohibits a licensee from placing an advertisement disseminated primarily in this state for a deferred deposit transaction unless the licensee discloses that it is licensed by the Department of Corporations. Existing law authorizes the commissioner to require a licensee to maintain a file of its advertisements for a period of 90 days. Existing law provides that a customer who enters into a deferred deposit transaction shall not be subject to criminal penalties for failure to comply with the terms of a deferred deposit transaction agreement. Existing law authorizes a licensee to defer the deposit of a customer's personal check for up to 31 days and provides that the face amount of the check shall not exceed $300. Existing law requires an agreement to enter into a deferred deposit transaction to be in writing and to include specified information and disclosures. Existing law authorizes a licensee to allow an extension of time, or a payment plan, for repayment of an existing deferred deposit transaction, as specified. A willful violation of the California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law is a crime. This bill would require specified applicants for licensure under the California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law, including, but not limited to, corporations, partnerships, and sole proprietorships, to include in their applications fingerprints and a completed statement of identity and questionnaire, as specified, for certain individuals, and other information, as specified. The bill would require a licensee to notify the department in writing of changes to the individuals named in the licensee's original application for licensure or if the licensee or any of those individuals has been found to have violated the laws of another state relative to deferred deposit transactions. The bill would also require a licensee to notify the department in writing when offering a new product or service that will generate more than 5% of the revenues of an office. The bill would make advertisements on the Internet by a licensee subject to the provisions regulating deferred deposit transaction advertisements and would require a licensee to maintain a file of all advertising copy currently in use for a period of 2 years from the date of itsfinal use. The bill would authorize the face amount of a check for a deferred deposit transaction to be up to $500. The bill would prohibit a deferred deposit transaction customer from being threatened with criminal penalties for a failure to comply with the terms of an agreement and would prohibit a licensee from referring or delivering a check taken in a deferred deposit transaction to a prosecutor, district attorney's diversion program, or other law enforcement official for purposes of collection or criminal prosecution unless that information is requested as part of an investigation. The bill would require a specified notice that is separate and distinct from the deferred deposit transaction agreement to be provided to and initialed by a customer before entering into the agreement. The bill would require the notice to inform the customer that he or she may rescind a deferred deposit transaction at no cost by notifying the licensee and returning the proceeds of the transaction within a specified time period. The bill would also require a licensee to make reasonable and accessible provisions for a customer to notify the licensee of his or her intent to rescind the transaction and return the loan proceeds and would require these provisions to be included with this notice. The bill would require that, if the deferred deposit transaction is conducted over the Internet, the customer shall agree in the written agreement to conduct the transaction and to receive notices and the agreement electronically. The bill would also require a licensee, when conducting deferred deposit transactions over the Internet, to make notices and the agreement available to a customer in a format that may be downloaded and printed or, if the customer is unable to download that information, to mail the documents to the customer within 24 hours of the transaction. The bill would require a licensee to annually pay a fee to the commissioner of 5 cents for each deferred deposit transaction paid in full in the previous calendar year and would require the money from these fees to be used by the commissioner to provide financial literacy education programs relative to deferred deposit transactions. The bill would authorize a customer who is unable to repay a deferred deposit transaction to elect, once in any 12-month period, to repay the deferred deposit transaction to the licensee pursuant to an extended payment plan, as specified. The bill would require a customer to be notified of his or her right to an extended payment plan. Because a willful violation of the bill's provisions by a licensee would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Bill status failed 3 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2009
Committee Review
Jul 2009
Assembly Passage
May 2009
Senate Passage
Governor
Introduced Feb 23, 2009 Last action Nov 30, 2010
Floor votes · Assembly May 11, 2009

How they voted

498
Passed · 13 other
Total votes 70
May 11, 2009
D Democratic43
23 Yea 8 Nay 12
53% Yea
I Independent1
1 Yea
100% Yea
R Republican26
25 Yea 1
96% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea All Nay Mixed No data
Full legislative history

Actions timeline

Total actions
18
Key actions
7
Committee
8
Amendments
4
Jul 14, 2009
Upper · Passed
In committee: Set, first hearing. Testimony taken. Further hearing to be set.
upper
Jul 6, 2009
Upper · Passed
In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
upper
Jun 23, 2009
Upper · Passed
Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on JUD.
upper
Jun 22, 2009
Introduced
From committee: Amend, do pass as amended, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 7. Noes 1.) (June 17).
upper
Jun 9, 2009
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on B., F. & I.
upper
May 21, 2009
Committee
Referred to Coms. on B., F. & I. and JUD.
upper
May 11, 2009
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (49-8-13)
assembly
Apr 30, 2009
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (April 29).
lower
Apr 14, 2009
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Re-referred. (Ayes 10. Noes 1.) (April 13).
lower
Apr 13, 2009
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on B. & F.
lower
Apr 2, 2009
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on B. & F. Read second time and amended.
lower
Mar 9, 2009
Committee
Referred to Com. on B. & F.
lower
Feb 24, 2009
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 26.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors

Sponsors

Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
TM
Tony Mendoza
DDemocratic
CA
32