H.R. 9330 would require pay-advance providers to offer a no-fee option and, in a specified circumstance, reimburse overdraft or nonsufficient-funds fees. Under the bill’s text on Congress.gov, reimbursement would apply when a provider tried to collect from a consumer’s deposit account earlier than disclosed, or for a different amount, and that mismatch caused a fee. The bill awaits scheduling for consideration by the full House.
Consumer advocates say the proposal would also exempt providers from federal truth-in-lending requirements and weaken some state protections. Those objections, and the bill’s unresolved status, leave open how national rules for these products might change.
Costs and repayment depend on the product
Pay-advance services let workers draw on earnings before payday, with repayment commonly taken from a bank account or paycheck. Employer-linked services use payroll information; direct-to-consumer apps generally assess eligibility through bank-account activity. The Center for Responsible Lending analysis, as described by The New York Times, examined transaction data for about 347,000 borrowers using 11 direct-to-consumer apps and eight employer-based tools from September 2024 through August 2025. Researchers could not calculate costs for the employer-based services in that sample because deductions and fees were generally handled through payroll.
For direct-to-consumer advances, the analysis estimated an average cost of about $6.50 to borrow $113 for nine days. It found that 96% of advances included a fee or tip, with borrowers paying roughly $17 a month, or more than $200 a year, on average. The study put the average annual percentage rate at about 232%. These findings and estimates are drawn here from the Times’ account of the CRL analysis.
Use was frequent in the analysis: borrowers took an average of 33 advances a year, and 42% of advances were for less than $100. The national figures were calculated from about 10,000 borrowers across states and weighted by state population, according to the Times’ report. Costs can include expedited-transfer charges, subscriptions or memberships, and tips.
Rates and classifications remain contested
The CRL analysis, as reported by the Times, found triple-digit average rates in every state and the District of Columbia, including states with short-term loan interest-rate caps of about 36%. Consumer advocate Lauren Saunders, whose comments appeared in the Times coverage, said that courts in more than a dozen states have treated pay advances as loans. She has also argued that employer-based services are less likely than direct-to-consumer apps to trigger unexpected bank overdrafts.
Advocates of earned-wage advances argue that the funds are wages already earned and dispute treating the advances as loans or calculating APRs for them. In testimony to the House Financial Services Committee in January, the group said these services help workers manage expenses between paydays.
The Seattle Times reported scrutiny of online paycheck advances.
A separate paper listed in the American Economic Association’s 2026 conference program, drawing on a September 2025 CRL report, reported that 53% of users borrowed through multiple platforms.
