SB 3721 amends the Truth in Lending Act by adding a new Section 140B that says the annual percentage rate (including fees) on any consumer credit transaction, except residential mortgage loans, may not exceed the maximum APR allowed by the laws of the state where the consumer lives. The language is framed as “notwithstanding any other provision of law,” which on its face makes state rate ceilings applicable even where federal law or chartering rules previously allowed higher rates.
For compliance officers, lenders, and state regulators this is a structural change: lenders that currently rely on federal charters, out‑of‑state lending arrangements, or “export” of higher interest rates would need to price and structure products around each borrower’s state cap, or cease doing business with consumers in restrictive states. The bill invites litigation over federal preemption and raises operational questions about enforcement, consumer residency verification, and competitive impacts in markets with divergent state caps.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts a new Sec. 140B into TILA making a consumer’s state maximum APR the binding ceiling for any consumer credit transaction other than residential mortgages, and expressly includes fees in that calculation. It uses a broad “notwithstanding any other provision of law” clause to prioritize the state cap over conflicting federal law.
Who It Affects
National banks, state banks, fintech platforms, marketplace lenders, and small-dollar lenders that serve customers across state lines will face new compliance obligations; state banking regulators and attorneys general gain an enforceable hook; consumers’ allowable rates will vary by state of residence.
Why It Matters
The bill reverses decades of regulatory practice that allowed federally chartered lenders and out‑of‑state lenders to offer uniform rates across the country by relying on federal preemption or interest exportation. It would create a patchwork of state‑level price controls with significant compliance, pricing, litigation, and market‑structure consequences.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
At its core SB 3721 makes the maximum annual percentage rate a matter of the consumer’s home state rather than the lender’s charter or the law of the lender’s location. The text is short: it adds Section 140B to the Truth in Lending Act and bars any consumer credit annual percentage rate — explicitly including fees — from exceeding the ceiling permitted under the law of the state where the consumer resides.
The only carve‑out is residential mortgage transactions.
The statute’s “notwithstanding any other provision of law” wording is consequential. That phrase is intended to ensure state rate limits apply even where federal statutes, agency rules, or judicial doctrines previously insulated certain lenders or products from state usury limits.
The bill does not spell out enforcement mechanisms, remedies, or an effective date; it simply creates the substantive cap and a statutory priority rule.Practically, the bill forces lenders to tie pricing and underwriting to each borrower’s state of residence. Lenders that today price by a single national rate will need systems to (1) determine and document consumer residence at origination and potentially during the life of a loan, (2) calculate an APR that respects state‑by‑state ceilings and includes all fee components, and (3) decide whether to offer products in high‑cap, low‑cap, or no‑cap states.
That creates immediate operational workstreams and legal exposure if a lender misapplies a ceiling.Because the bill applies to “any consumer credit transaction” except residential mortgages, it reaches credit cards, many personal and small‑dollar loans, auto loans not classified as mortgage, and other nonmortgage consumer debt covered by TILA. The text’s brevity leaves several implementation questions unresolved: how conflicts with federal chartering statutes and OCC/FDIC policies will be adjudicated, whether the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or state enforcement authorities will be the primary enforcers, and how lenders should treat states that do not set an explicit maximum rate.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds Section 140B to the Truth in Lending Act making a consumer’s state maximum APR the legal ceiling for consumer credit transactions other than residential mortgages.
Section 140B expressly includes fees in the calculation of the annual percentage rate that the state cap will constrain.
The provision is framed “notwithstanding any other provision of law,” signaling that state caps should take priority over conflicting federal statutes, regulations, or doctrines.
SB 3721 does not create a federal enforcement regime or private‑right‑of‑action language tied to the new cap; it only establishes the substantive limit within TILA.
The amendment updates the chapter’s table of contents and is structurally concise—no implementing definitions, exceptions (other than mortgages), or transition rules are included in the text.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s name: the Empowering States’ Rights To Protect Consumers Act of 2026. This is a formal label and conveys the sponsors’ framing but has no legal effect on the statute’s operative provisions.
State APR cap becomes binding limit on consumer credit
This is the operative change: the bill amends Chapter 2 of TILA by inserting Sec. 140B, which prohibits any annual percentage rate on a consumer credit transaction (except residential mortgages) from exceeding the maximum rate permitted by the law of the state where the consumer resides. The provision explicitly folds fees into the APR ceiling and uses broad overriding language — “notwithstanding any other provision of law” — to elevate the state ceiling above conflicting federal authorities or doctrines.
Table of contents updated
Adds the new Sec. 140B entry to the chapter’s table of contents. This is a purely clerical amendment but signals that Congress intends the new provision to be integrated into TILA’s statutory structure rather than a standalone rider.
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
- State regulators and attorneys general — They gain an express federal statutory basis to require compliance with state rate ceilings and to challenge out‑of‑state or federally chartered lenders that charge above a state’s cap.
- Consumers in low‑cap states — Borrowers who reside in states with strict usury limits or caps on small‑dollar lending would be protected from higher APRs and embedded fee structures that inflate effective rates.
- State‑chartered community banks and some local lenders — Institutions that already price to local law will face less direct competition from national lenders that previously relied on preemption or rate exportation.
Who Bears the Cost
- National banks and federally chartered lenders — These institutions will face legal uncertainty about whether federal charters still permit nationwide rates that exceed state caps, and may need to reprice, restrict offerings by state, or litigate.
- Fintech platforms and marketplace lenders using out‑of‑state origination or bank‑partner models — Those business models rely on uniform national pricing and will incur compliance, engineering, and legal costs to segment offerings by consumer residence or abandon some state markets.
- Consumers in stricter states if lenders withdraw — If lenders exit or scale back in low‑cap states rather than accept reduced yields, residents in those states could lose access to credit or face tighter credit standards.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between state‑level consumer protection and a predictable, unified national lending market: empowering each state to cap APRs strengthens local consumer safeguards but fragments pricing and compliance for lenders that operate across state lines, potentially shrinking credit availability or triggering regulatory and constitutional challenges with no straightforward resolution.
The bill’s short, declarative language creates immediate legal and operational ambiguity. The “notwithstanding any other provision of law” clause strongly suggests an intent to preempt federal doctrines that previously allowed certain lenders to export interest rates, but the statute does not address constitutional questions (such as Commerce Clause limits), nor does it identify how federal banking charters or agency policies should be reconciled.
Expect litigation over whether Congress can, via amendment to TILA, constrain the interest‑taking of nationally‑chartered institutions or whether other federal statutes control.
Implementation details are missing. SB 3721 does not specify whether the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, federal bank regulators, or state authorities will lead enforcement, what penalties apply, or how to handle loans originated before the statute’s effective date.
The bill also leaves open how to treat a state that has no statutory maximum—it could be read to permit any rate where a state provides no cap, producing uneven consumer protections. Operationally, lenders must decide how to determine and document consumer residence (and whether loans already outstanding must be reclassified), how to include all fee components in APR calculations consistent with state rules, and how to update systems to price by state.
Those unresolved mechanics will drive the immediate cost and litigation posture following enactment.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.