SB3793 (Predatory Lending Elimination Act) amends the Truth in Lending Act by importing the consumer protections found in 10 U.S.C. 987 (the Military Lending Act, or MLA) and applying them to all consumers. The bill creates a new TILA section (140B) that directs creditors offering consumer credit to comply with the substantive limits, disclosure rules, and remedies now imposed on lenders to covered military borrowers, subject to a small set of product and entity exceptions.
The change matters because it substitutes an existing federal framework—one that already defines a MAPR cap, required disclosures, and prohibitions on certain loan terms—for the current, more fragmented federal-state regime governing high-cost consumer lending. If enacted, lenders, card issuers, fintechs, and state regulators would face a short rulemaking clock, new APR-calculation rules tied to Department of Defense practice, and an expanded enforcement field that includes state attorneys general and regulators with a three-year window to sue.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds section 140B to TILA and requires creditors to follow section 987(b) of title 10 (the MLA) when extending consumer credit, with three specific exceptions: residential mortgages, vehicle-purchase loans secured by the vehicle, and loans by federal credit unions subject to their statutory rate limit. It also forbids the CFPB from using its exemption authority to exempt entities from these rules.
Who It Affects
National and state-chartered banks, credit card issuers, fintech lenders, and other consumer creditors that extend unsecured or open-end credit to retail consumers; federal credit unions are treated differently under the bill’s exception and NCUA rate rules. State attorneys general and state financial regulators gain express enforcement authority.
Why It Matters
The bill replaces ad hoc state protections with a single federal ceiling and rule set grounded in the MLA, standardizing APR calculation methods and fee treatment across many consumer products. That uniformity reduces uncertainty for firms that operate nationwide but creates near-term compliance work as the CFPB issues implementing rules and lenders revise pricing and disclosures.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB3793 folds the Military Lending Act’s substantive consumer protections into the Truth in Lending Act by creating a new section, 140B. Practically, the bill tells every creditor that extends consumer credit to treat ordinary consumers the same way the MLA currently treats covered servicemembers and dependents—subject to the three exceptions the bill lists.
The statute references section 987 of title 10 rather than reciting every rule, so the MLA’s definitions, rate ceiling, prohibited terms, and remedies operate by reference.
The bill tackles technical measurement questions: it requires APRs on open-end plans to be calculated under TILA’s standard method (section 107(a)(2)), but expressly adjusts what counts as a finance charge using the Department of Defense rules issued July 22, 2015. For credit-card-style (open-end, not home-secured) accounts, the bill permits excluding certain bona fide non-periodic fees from the finance charge calculation only when those fees comply with section 127(n) of TILA, while explicitly barring exclusions for credit insurance premiums, debt-cancellation charges, and fees for ancillary credit products.Enforcement and regulatory structure are central to implementation.
The CFPB must issue conforming rules within one year in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and may not adopt standards that offer less protection than the DoD’s 2015 MLA rules. The bill removes the CFPB’s exemption authority for this section, brings the MLA’s remedies into play for violations, and preserves a role for state attorneys general and state regulators to sue or bring proceedings within three years of a violation.
Finally, the new rules take effect for credit extended after the earlier of the CFPB’s compliance date in its rules or 18 months after the act’s enactment, creating a finite transition window for lenders.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill applies section 987(b) of title 10 (the Military Lending Act’s substantive protections, including the MAPR ceiling) to any creditor that extends consumer credit to a consumer.
Three explicit exceptions exist: residential mortgages, vehicle-purchase loans that are secured by the vehicle and intended to finance the purchase, and loans made by federal credit unions subject to the FCU Act’s rate limit as implemented by NCUA.
The CFPB cannot use its exemption authority under section 105(f) to exempt entities from the new TILA section, and the CFPB must issue implementing rules within one year in consultation with the Secretary of Defense.
Open-end credit APRs are to be calculated under TILA section 107(a)(2) but adjusted using the DoD’s July 22, 2015 finance-charge rules; bona fide non-periodic fees on credit-card accounts may be excluded only if they comply with section 127(n), but credit insurance and ancillary-product fees are always included.
Enforcement imports 10 U.S.C. 987(f) remedies for violations, preserves state enforcement by attorneys general and regulators (who have a three‑year window to act), and makes the law apply to credit extended after the CFPB’s compliance trigger or 18 months from enactment, whichever is earlier.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title — Predatory Lending Elimination Act
This is the formal naming provision; its practical effect is limited but signals the bill’s policy purpose and frames the statutory change that follows.
Importation of Military Lending Act protections to all consumers
This subsection is the core operative text: rather than drafting new caps and prohibitions inside TILA, it requires creditors to follow 10 U.S.C. 987(b) ‘‘to the same extent’’ as when they lend to covered servicemembers. Because the bill references the MLA by statute and definition, the MLA’s existing definitions (including who counts as a covered member or dependent) and substantive limits operate through TILA.
Narrow product and entity carve-outs
The bill excludes three categories from the new regime: (A) residential mortgages; (B) vehicle loans made specifically to finance a vehicle purchase and secured by that vehicle; and (C) loans made by federal credit unions, which remain subject to the Federal Credit Union Act’s statutory rate ceiling as implemented by the NCUA. These carve-outs preserve existing mortgage and auto‑purchase market practices and respect the separate statutory treatment of federal credit unions.
How APR and finance charges are measured for open-end credit
The bill directs that APRs on open-end plans be calculated using TILA’s standard formula but adjusted to mirror the DoD’s July 22, 2015 interpretation of what counts as a finance charge under the MLA. For credit-card accounts, the bill creates a limited pathway to exclude bona fide non-periodic fees from the finance‑charge calculation if they meet TILA section 127(n) requirements, while expressly excluding credit insurance and ancillary-product fees from that carve‑out.
Enforcement framework and relation to state law
The bill folds the MLA’s enforcement mechanism (10 U.S.C. 987(f)) into TILA for consumer-credit violations and preserves state law protections that are more protective than the federal standard. It also grants state attorneys general and state regulators explicit authority to bring civil actions or regulatory proceedings within three years of a violation and ties notice and procedural rules to existing CFPB‑CFPB/CFPB‑state procedures.
CFPB rulemaking deadline and design constraints
Notwithstanding a standard CFPB rulemaking timing provision, the bill requires the Bureau to issue implementing rules within one year, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, and to publish notice for Congress and the public. The implementing rules must be at least as protective as the DoD’s 2015 MLA rules and cannot provide lesser consumer protections.
When the new rules take effect
The bill makes the new TILA provisions applicable to credit extended after the earlier of the date the CFPB’s rules require compliance or 18 months after enactment. That creates either a CFPB-driven compliance date or a hard 18‑month backstop for implementation.
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
- Consumer borrowers with high-cost credit: They gain protections patterned on the MLA (including a MAPR-style ceiling and prohibited loan terms), which constrain total cost and certain abusive contract provisions.
- State attorneys general and state regulators: They receive explicit authority to sue or bring regulatory actions under the new TILA section and a three‑year window to pursue violations, strengthening state enforcement tools.
- Consumer‑protection NGOs and legal services: Organizations that represent individual borrowers will find a clearer federal standard and remedies to challenge high-cost credit and related fees.
Who Bears the Cost
- Nonbank and bank creditors that extend unsecured and open‑end consumer credit: Lenders will need to revise pricing models, APR calculations, fee structures, underwriting, and disclosures to comply with MLA-based rules and the CFPB’s implementing regulations.
- Fintech platforms and marketplace lenders: Firms that rely on fee revenue or innovative fee structures may face compliance risk and reduced margins; they will likely invest in legal and compliance resources to adapt systems to the DoD‑aligned APR methodology.
- State-chartered financial institutions and state regulators: Although states gain enforcement authority, state regulators may absorb additional supervisory and litigation burdens; smaller state‑chartered lenders could face higher compliance costs relative to larger national banks.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill attempts to spread the strong consumer protections of the Military Lending Act to the general population, trading broader protection against predatory pricing for increased compliance complexity and likely contraction of some high‑cost credit channels; the central dilemma is whether a uniform federal ceiling (and its rule‑driven implementation) protects consumers without unintentionally shrinking access or encouraging product redesigns that sidestep the law.
The bill avoids drafting a bespoke rate or fee schedule inside TILA by importing the MLA by reference. That economizes on statutory text but shifts significant interpretive work to the CFPB and courts: the CFPB must determine how the DoD’s 2015 finance‑charge adjustments interact with TILA’s computation rules, and lenders will need to reconcile disparate administrative interpretations.
The limited fee exclusion for ‘‘bona fide’’ non‑periodic fees tied to section 127(n) creates room for litigation over what qualifies as bona fide and whether certain vendor or platform charges are simply thinly disguised finance charges.
Another practical tension arises from the exceptions and the federal credit union carve‑out. Excluding mortgages and purchase‑secured auto loans reduces disruption in those markets but creates incentives for lenders to repackage credit into excluded product forms.
The federal credit union exception also raises the risk of regulatory arbitrage between federal credit unions and other lenders. Finally, the bifurcated enforcement regime—federal remedies under the MLA, explicit state AG and regulator authority, and a one‑year CFPB rulemaking deadline—creates overlap that could produce inconsistent outcomes across jurisdictions and a wave of pre‑emptive litigation challenging scope, calculations, and compliance timing.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.