SB3903 inserts uniform fee-authority language into a slate of Illinois consumer-finance statutes and clarifies how examination costs are charged. The bill adds new “Fees” sections (or fee-authority language) to the Sales Finance Agency Act, Debt Management Service Act, Consumer Installment Loan Act, Debt Settlement Consumer Protection Act, Safety Deposit License Act, and the Payday Loan Reform Act, and it alters provisions of the Currency Exchange Act and other existing provisions that govern examinations and investigations.
Across those laws the Secretary (or Director where specified) is authorized to assess and allocate the expenses of administering the statutes and to set categories and amounts of fees by rule.
Mechanically, the bill double-threads two changes: (1) an explicit statutory grant that the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR) may assess fees and amend them by rule, and (2) updated examination language in several statutes that ties examinations — and the fees for them — to a schedule reasonably reflecting actual costs (including travel for out-of-state exams where specified). For regulated firms, that means predictable rulemaking authority for IDFPR to recover regulatory costs and a new line-item to budget for: examination and investigation fees that can be set and changed through administrative rulemaking.
The act takes effect on enactment.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds a model “Fees” provision to multiple consumer-finance statutes authorizing the Secretary (or Director) to assess the costs of administration — licensing, investigations, and examinations — against regulated entities and to set and amend fee categories and amounts by rule. It also revises examination language in several statutes to require or clarify annual examinations and to permit charging fees reflecting actual costs (including travel for out-of-state exams).
Who It Affects
Community and ambulatory currency exchanges, sales finance agencies, consumer installment lenders, payday lenders, debt management and debt settlement providers, safety-deposit licensees, and any entity currently licensed under the amended Acts; compliance officers, CFOs, and outside counsel who budget for regulatory costs; and IDFPR’s budget and rulemaking staff.
Why It Matters
SB3903 shifts the financing of supervision from implicit general-fund support to industry-paid fees and concentrates fee-setting authority in IDFPR’s rulemaking power. That matters for compliance budgets (new or expanded exam fees), for regulatory predictability (fees set by rule rather than fixed solely in statute), and for oversight intensity because examination frequency and cost recovery are now governed by statutory language that emphasizes cost-reflective fees and administrative discretion.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB3903 standardizes a simple but consequential idea: the regulated industries should pay the cost of running the regulatory programs that supervise them, and IDFPR should get clear authority to set those fees by rule. To do that, the bill inserts new “Fees” sections into several statutes and amends examination and investigation provisions so that the Secretary (or the Director) can assess administrative costs against licensees in proportions and manners the agency deems appropriate.
The common text gives the agency authority to create fee categories and set amounts through the Illinois rulemaking process, and it expressly allows fees stated in statute to be amended by rule.
Alongside the general fee-authority language, SB3903 also modifies how exams and investigations are framed in a number of Acts. Where statutes already required or permitted examinations, the bill either clarifies that the agency may charge exam fees that reasonably reflect actual costs or, in some places, reaffirms an annual examination obligation while authorizing the agency to set fees (including travel costs for out-of-state locations) to cover those examinations.
Those changes mean exam days can carry a specified per-day fee and related travel charges, and that the Department can recover the cost rather than absorb it in its baseline budget.Not all numeric amounts are new: the Consumer Installment Loan Act keeps the existing application and annual license fees and bond and net-worth requirements, but SB3903 layers on the Secretary’s rulemaking power to add other administrative fees. Separately, the Currency Exchange Act retains its multi-factor rate-setting framework for consumer-facing fees and keeps procedural protections (including confidentiality rules and a petition/hearing process to adjust maximum-rate schedules), while adding the general provision that administrative costs can be allocated to regulated persons by rule.Practically, compliance and finance teams will need to track IDFPR rulemaking for fee schedules and for any exam-fee rates that the Department adopts.
Smaller operators should prepare for potentially proportionate assessments; larger multi-state licensees should expect rules addressing travel and out-of-state exam costs. Because the bill centralizes fee authority in the agency, many implementation details — allocation methodology, fee caps (if any), waiver standards, and notice/appeal processes — will be resolved in rulemaking rather than the statute itself.
The Five Things You Need to Know
SB3903 inserts a uniform fee-authority clause into at least seven statutes: the Currency Exchange Act, Sales Finance Agency Act, Debt Management Service Act, Consumer Installment Loan Act, Debt Settlement Consumer Protection Act, Safety Deposit License Act, and Payday Loan Reform Act.
The bill expressly authorizes the Secretary of Financial and Professional Regulation (or the Director where named) to establish by rule the categories and amounts of fees to recover the expenses of administering each Act, and to amend statutory fees by rule.
Several statutes are amended or clarified to tie examinations to fee recovery: exam fees must reasonably reflect actual costs and can include travel expenses for out-of-state licensed locations where specified.
Existing statutorily set amounts in the Consumer Installment Loan Act — a $300 application fee, a $450 annual license fee, a $25,000 surety bond, and the $30,000 net-worth threshold — remain in the text while the bill adds broader fee authority to that Act.
The Act makes its changes effective upon becoming law, meaning IDFPR’s rulemaking to implement the new fee authority can begin immediately after enactment.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Maintains rate-setting for consumer fees; adds authority to allocate administrative costs
SB3903 republishes the Currency Exchange Act’s reporting, examination, and public-interest language while pairing it with the model fee-authority language. The multi-factor standard the Secretary uses to set maximum consumer rates (check-cashing and money orders) remains intact, including the petition process to adjust maximum-rate schedules and the provision allowing currency exchanges to adopt lower fees after filing a schedule. What changes materially is the explicit declaration that the expenses of administering the Act — licensing, investigations, examinations — may be borne by regulated persons and that the Secretary may establish fee categories and amounts by rule. Practically, the Department can recover the costs of currency-exchange supervision through a rule-based fee schedule rather than relying on existing examination fees or ad hoc funding.
Creates fee authority and clarifies annual-exam fee recovery
The bill adds a stand-alone Fees section that mirrors the model language: the Department may assess the costs of administering the Act against regulated entities and set fees by rule. Section 7’s examination language is edited to tie annual examinations to a fee schedule that reasonably reflects the actual cost of the examination. That language gives IDFPR clearer statutory footing to charge licensees for routine annual examinations and for re‑examinations — turning what might have been a general supervision cost into a recoverable fee item.
Fee-authority insertion for debt-management providers
SB3903 adds a Fees section to the Debt Management Service Act duplicating the model clause: the Secretary may assess costs of licensing, investigations, and examinations against regulated persons and may set fee categories and amounts by rule. This formally authorizes cost-recovery from debt management firms and places the mechanics of fee design and amendment within IDFPR’s administrative rulemaking process.
Keeps statutory license fees and bonding requirements; adds rule-based administrative fees and exam-cost recovery
The bill leaves the statute’s existing application fee ($300), annual license fee ($450), net-worth and $25,000 bond requirements in place but inserts a new Fees clause authorizing the Secretary to allocate administrative costs and set fees by rule. Section 10’s investigative/examination text is revised to confirm the Director’s access to books and records and to require or clarify annual examinations while permitting the Director to set per-examination fees (including travel expenses for out‑of‑state operations) that reasonably reflect actual costs. For lenders, that means the preexisting statutory fees remain but new administrative/exam fees can be layered on through rulemaking.
Adds fee authority for debt-settlement firms
The Debt Settlement Act receives the same model Fees provision, making licensing, investigations, and examinations chargeable to debt-settlement providers via rule. The practical effect is to permit cost recovery from entities that advise or negotiate with creditors on behalf of consumers, an activity historically subject to varying oversight-resource levels.
Inspection requirement remains; agency gains fee-setting power
The bill preserves the Director’s authority to inspect safety-deposit facilities and to keep public inspection records while adding the model fee-authority clause. That means inspections still occur (Section 23 continues to require inspection at least once per license period), but the Department may now assess administrative costs against safety‑deposit licensees through rulemaking.
Adds a fees section for payday lenders
SB3903 introduces a Fees section into the Payday Loan Reform Act authorizing the Secretary to impose administrative fees by rule to cover licensing, investigations, and examinations. Payday lenders therefore may see regulatory cost recovery imposed via agency rule rather than only by statutory license fees or ad hoc assessments.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Department of Financial and Professional Regulation: Gains clear statutory authority to recover the costs of supervision and greater budgetary predictability, reducing reliance on appropriations for program costs.
- State taxpayers / general fund: Potentially benefits if IDFPR recovers program costs from regulated entities rather than relying on general-fund subsidies for supervision.
- Regulated firms that want fee predictability: Firms with compliance and finance functions can plan around rulemaking-driven fee schedules and may be able to use the petition processes that remain in some statutes (e.g., currency exchange) to influence rate-setting.
Who Bears the Cost
- Consumer-finance licensees (currency exchanges, installment lenders, sales finance agencies, payday lenders, debt management/settlement firms, safety-deposit licensees): Face new or expanded administrative and examination fees, including charges that can reflect travel or out-of-state costs.
- Small or single-location operators: May bear disproportionate burdens because fee allocation will be set by rule and could create meaningful fixed costs relative to small revenue bases.
- Consumers: Could face indirect costs if regulated firms pass through the new administrative/exam fees into prices for check-cashing, installment loans, payday loans, or other services.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between making regulation financially self-sustaining by charging regulated firms for licensing, examinations, and investigations, and preserving independent, consistent, and proportionate supervision — because shifting funding to fees both reduces general-fund exposure and creates incentives and distributional consequences that can increase costs for small operators and, indirectly, consumers.
SB3903 makes a structural change — concentrating fee-setting and cost-recovery authority in the agency via rulemaking — but leaves most implementation details to the administrative process. That raises immediate practical questions: How will fee categories be defined and allocated across diverse licensee populations (national firms, small community operators, ambulatory providers)?
Will fee schedules apply equally per-license, per-location, or be scaled by size and revenue? The statute’s grant is broad (“in such proportions and in such manner as the Secretary deems appropriate”), which gives the agency flexibility but also creates room for contentious rulemakings over allocation methodology, exemptions, and waiver standards.
There is also a governance and incentive tension. Fee funding improves budgetary alignment for supervision but creates the risk that the regulator’s revenue grows with the intensity of activity it charges for, which can blur oversight priorities (enforcement versus cost recovery).
The bill references that exam fees should reasonably reflect actual costs in some places, but it does not create a transparent cap, a required cost-accounting methodology, or an independent audit requirement for those fees. Likewise, several examination provisions now explicitly permit travel and out-of-state charges; without clear standards, those items could be a significant line-item for multistate licensees.
Lastly, the bill contains several drafting anomalies and mixed verb forms in examination clauses that will require clarifying rules or technical edits to avoid litigation over the agency’s obligation versus discretion to examine annually and to charge fees.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.