The Credit Access and Inclusion Act of 2025 adds a new subsection to section 623 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act authorizing persons and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to furnish information about a consumer’s performance on lease agreements and utility or telecommunications contracts to consumer reporting agencies. The text creates definitions for ‘‘energy utility firm’’ and ‘‘utility or telecommunication firm,’’ limits the kinds of utility usage data that may be furnished to payment and contract terms, and protects consumers on approved payment plans from being reported as late while they meet plan obligations.
The bill also amends the liability provision in section 623(c) to make the new authorization subject to the existing limitation on furnisher liability, and it directs the Government Accountability Office to report to Congress within two years on the consumer impacts of these new reporting practices. The measure matters for lenders, credit modelers, utilities, landlords, and consumer advocates because it expands the universe of data that can be placed on credit files while reducing legal exposure for furnishers — a structural change to how scoring models and underwriting may treat low-credit populations.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds subsection (f) to 15 U.S.C. 1681s–2, expressly permitting a person or HUD to furnish to consumer reporting agencies information about payment performance under residential lease agreements and utility or telecommunications contracts, subject to limits on usage details. It bars energy utilities from reporting an account as late if the consumer is on a firm payment plan and is meeting its terms.
Who It Affects
Affected parties include energy utilities, other utilities and telecom firms, landlords and property managers (including HUD-subsidized housing programs), consumer reporting agencies, credit modelers, lenders, and consumers with limited or thin credit files — particularly renters and low-income households.
Why It Matters
By widening permissible data sources for credit files and adding a furnisher-friendly liability carve-out, the bill creates incentives for nonfinancial service providers to feed positive payment history into credit reports, with potential to change underwriting and credit access — but it also raises questions about accuracy, privacy, and dispute remedies.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill inserts a targeted ‘‘full-file credit reporting’’ authority into the Fair Credit Reporting Act. It starts by defining the kinds of entities covered: ‘‘energy utility firm’’ for gas and electric providers, and a broader ‘‘utility or telecommunication firm’’ for entities supplying services over pipe, wire, cable or wireless facilities.
That definition-setting matters because only entities in those buckets — or any ‘‘person’’ generally, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development — can furnish the new categories of information to consumer reporting agencies.
Under the new text, furnishers may report information about how a consumer performs on lease agreements for dwellings (explicitly including leases tied to HUD-subsidized payments) and on contracts for utility or telecom service. The statute limits furnished utility data: furnishers may only report details that relate to payment for the service or other contract terms (for example deposits, discounts, or conditions for service interruption or termination).
Raw usage metrics like kilowatt-hours consumed or minutes used are excluded unless they directly relate to payment or contract terms.The bill creates a specific protection for energy utility customers on payment plans. If an energy utility and a consumer agree to a deferred payment arrangement, arrearage management, or forgiveness program and the consumer is meeting that plan’s obligations, the utility must not report the outstanding balance as late.
That establishes a compliance hinge point: the utility’s own determination that the consumer is meeting the plan controls reporting of lateness.Finally, the bill amends the furnisher-liability language so that subsection (f)’s authorization is encompassed by the limitation on liability in section 623(c). Practically, that reduces civil exposure for entities that furnish the newly permitted data.
Congress also orders a GAO study, due within two years of enactment, to assess consumer outcomes from these reporting practices, leaving oversight and empirical evaluation to a follow-up review rather than to new federal operational standards in the text itself.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds subsection (f) to 15 U.S.C. 1681s–2, authorizing furnishing of payment performance on residential lease agreements and utility/telecom contracts to consumer reporting agencies.
It defines 'energy utility firm' (gas/electric providers) and 'utility or telecommunication firm' (entities providing service via pipe, wire, wireless, cable, or similar transmission) to set who may furnish data.
Furnished utility data is limited to information tied to payment or contract terms — deposits, discounts, or service-interruption conditions — and excludes raw usage metrics unless related to payment.
An energy utility may not report an outstanding balance as late when the consumer is on an agreed payment plan (including deferred payment, arrearage management, or forgiveness programs) and is meeting that plan as determined by the utility.
The bill adds subsection (f) to the liability carve-out in section 623(c) narrowing furnisher liability for these reports, and requires the GAO to report to Congress on consumer impacts within two years.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the bill as the 'Credit Access and Inclusion Act of 2025.' This is a technical provision that does not change obligations but frames the bill’s policy purpose for subsequent interpretation and legislative history.
Who counts as a furnisher: energy firm and utility/telecom firm
Subsection (f)(1) supplies statutory definitions for 'energy utility firm' and 'utility or telecommunication firm.' Those definitions are operational: they determine which entities can furnish new categories of information. Practically, electric and gas companies fall squarely under 'energy utility firm,' while cable, broadband, wireless, and other providers are included under the broader utility/telecom rubric — exposing a wide set of companies to new reporting decisions and compliance obligations.
Permits furnishing of lease and service payment performance, but limits usage data
Subsection (f)(2) authorizes a person or HUD to furnish information about payment performance under dwelling leases and utility/telecom contracts. Subsection (f)(3) narrows what utilities may report about usage: only information tied to payment or contract terms—such as deposits, discounts, or conditions for service interruption/termination—may be furnished. That carve-out reduces the chance raw consumption data enters credit files, but leaves room for furnishers to report many contract-related data points that scoring models could use.
Payment-plan protection from late reporting
This provision bars energy utilities from reporting an outstanding balance as late if the consumer is on an agreed payment plan (variously described to include deferred payment agreements, arrearage management, and forgiveness programs) and is meeting the plan’s obligations 'as determined by the energy utility firm.' The clause delegates the factual determination of compliance to the utility, which simplifies operational practice but raises questions about documentation standards and consumer notice.
Extension of furnisher liability limitation to new reporting
Section 2(b) amends section 623(c) to include the newly added subsection (f) within the existing limitation on furnisher liability. That change reduces civil exposure for entities furnishing lease and utility information, removing a legal disincentive to participate but also cutting back consumers’ potential remedies against inaccurate furnishers.
GAO study and report
Directs the Government Accountability Office to produce a report no later than two years after enactment assessing how furnishing under subsection (f) has affected consumers. The text does not prescribe metrics, but signals Congressional intent to monitor impacts on credit access and accuracy after implementation — leaving the initial implementation to furnishers and CRAs.
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
- Renters and consumers with thin or no credit files: Positive lease and utility payment histories can create a tradeline where none existed, potentially improving access to loans, credit cards, and rental housing for people who rely on nontraditional payment history.
- HUD-subsidized tenants participating in programs: The bill explicitly includes HUD-subsidized lease payments, giving socially assisted tenants a route to build credit from on-time payments made or subsidized through HUD programs.
- Consumer reporting agencies and credit modelers: CRAs and analytics firms gain new data inputs that can refine risk segmentation and enable development of alternative credit-scoring products targeted at underbanked populations.
- Traditional and nonbank lenders, fintechs: More granular payment histories from utilities and leases provide additional underwriting signals that lenders can use to approve more applicants or price credit more precisely.
Who Bears the Cost
- Utilities and telecommunications firms: These firms must decide whether to build reporting systems, implement data-sharing processes, and manage disputes and documentation — incurring IT, operational, and legal compliance costs.
- Small and municipal utilities: Smaller providers may face disproportionate implementation burdens and costs to convert billing systems into furnisher-capable formats or to staff dispute-resolution processes.
- Consumers (risk of inaccuracies and privacy exposure): Consumers may face harms from misreporting, mistaken linking of accounts, or the inclusion of sensitive contract terms; the bill reduces some legal leverage against furnishers.
- Consumer protection agencies and courts: Regulators and courts may see increased caseloads tied to disputes over the new data types, enforcement of accuracy standards, and challenges about the scope of the liability limitation.
- Landlords and property managers: Entities that choose to furnish lease-payment data must develop systems for reporting, obtain resident consent where necessary, and handle disputes — adding administrative burdens.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between improving credit inclusion by encouraging nontraditional data furnishers to share positive payment history, and protecting consumers from new privacy, accuracy, and remedy gaps: reducing furnisher liability and leaving operational standards undefined makes data supply more likely, but it also increases the chance that inaccurate, inconsistent, or intrusive information will harm the very households the bill aims to help.
The bill tilts incentives to increase data flow into credit files by both authorizing nontraditional furnishers and insulating them from some legal exposure. That combination is deliberate: furnishers face less liability and therefore have a lower threshold to participate, which could expand positive tradelines for thin-file consumers.
But the text leaves critical operational details unspecified — it does not require standardized data formats, consumer notice, express consent for furnishing, or benchmarks for what it means to be 'meeting' a payment plan. Those gaps create implementation risks: inconsistent reporting formats, differing furnisher standards for plan compliance, and variable dispute outcomes across providers and CRAs.
Another tension arises from the liability carve-out. Extending the limitation on furnisher liability to this new category will likely reduce the number of private suits against utilities and landlords for inaccurate reporting, but it also may weaken market pressure for high-quality data.
The GAO study requirement gives Congress a backstop for evaluation, but the two-year window and absence of mandated metrics mean empirical oversight may be slow and limited. Finally, while the bill excludes raw usage metrics unless they relate to payment, ambiguity around what 'relates to' means could allow furnishers to translate usage into payment proxies that still create privacy or disparate-impact concerns for low-income consumers.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.