“Combining employer-integrated solutions and direct-to-consumer products under a single, relaxed standard weakens consumer safety,” writes an industry executive.

Carl Morris is the vice president of compliance at earned wage access provider FlexWage Solutions. He is based in Scottsdale, Arizona.

With federal legislation in Congress being named the Earned Wage Access Consumer Protection Act, one would expect it to closely mirror an existing opinion from the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. However, that is not the case.

Below is a comparison of the CFPB opinion, issued December 22, 2025, and proposed House bill H.R. 9330, contrasting four key characteristics of each.

The CFPB opinion said the actual earned wage amount must be based on verified payroll data. Providers cannot rely on worker representations, estimates or predictions. Meanwhile, H.R. 9330 allows providers to use "reasonably determined" amounts, opening the door for estimations, predictions, algorithms and gross wage approximations.

The CFPB opinion also requires recoupment through direct payroll process deduction, rather than transfers from a consumer’s personal transaction account. That's in contrast to H.R. 9330, which defines no specific recoupment process, requiring only that the timing and amount match what was disclosed to the consumer.

For overpayment remedies, the CFPB opinion strictly specifies no recourse. That means earned wage access (EWA) providers have no claim against the worker if payroll deductions are insufficient, including no right to debit personal bank accounts. R. 9330 takes a different tack, placing no limits on how many times a provider may attempt account debits to collect overpayments.

Source link