IdahoIdaho bill would limit how programmable money issuers deny payments
The failed bill would require free alternatives in some cases and let people challenge certain payment denials through requests, lawsuits, and penalties.
What it does
If an issuer requires programmable money for a payment, it would have to offer a free way to pay with money that is not programmable.
Issuers would be barred from denying payments based on listed personal traits or views, medical or purchase history, location, work, or other lawful activity. They also could not use automated systems to cause those denials.
A person could ask why an issuer denied a payment within 90 days. The issuer would then have 30 days to explain and provide the related service terms and contact details.
A person harmed by a violation could sue for damages or a court order. Issuers could also face fines or jail time, and a court could revoke their Idaho business authorization for certain repeated or knowing violations.
Argument forPeople could keep a free payment option and learn why a payment was denied, which may help them question restrictions on lawful activity.
Argument againstIssuers could face steep penalties for each unjustified denied payment, including a fine or jail time, even when a decision was automated.
More detail
Issuers would have to offer a free way to pay without programmable money when they require its use. This applies to public or private issuers of programmable money. The alternative must use money that is not programmable. The bill would take effect July 1, 2026, if enacted. It failed in the Senate.
Issuers could not deny, or cause the denial of, a payment based on the listed factors. This applies to issuers of programmable money, including when they use automated systems or programming to cause a denial. The factors include personal traits and views, medical and purchase history, location, a person's work, and other lawful activity. An issuer could still refuse a payment that is a crime or pays for a criminal act. The bill would take effect July 1, 2026, if enacted. It failed in the Senate.
A person could ask why a payment was denied, and the issuer would have to give a detailed response. This applies when an issuer denies a payment. The person must ask within 90 days after the denial. The issuer must respond within 30 days with the reason, the service terms behind the denial, contact details, and a copy of those terms. The bill would take effect July 1, 2026, if enacted. It failed in the Senate.
People harmed by a violation could sue, and issuers could face civil and criminal penalties. These remedies and penalties apply to violations of the chapter by an issuer. A person harmed by a violation could seek a court order and actual or punitive damages; the winning side could recover reasonable legal fees. For an intentional, knowing, or repeated violation, a court could revoke the issuer's Idaho business authorization. A conviction could bring a fine of up to $10,000 per violation, up to one year in jail, or both. The bill would take effect July 1, 2026, if enacted. It failed in the Senate.
Where do you stand?
Choose your position
Tell your reps
Take a position to see your representatives and ways to contact them.
Where it stands
- Introduced
- Passed 1st Chamber
- Passed 2nd Chamber
- To Governor
- Became Law
Looking ahead
No hearings or votes scheduled.
History
- 2026
- Mar 31Returned from Senate Failed; Filed in the office of the Chief ClerkLatest
- Mar 30Read third time in full – FAILED - 13-21-1AYES – Adams, Anthon, Bjerke(Bjerke), Carlson, Den Hartog, Foreman, Hart, Keyser, Lenney, Nichols, Ricks, Toews, VanOrdenNAYS – Bernt, Blaylock, Burtenshaw, Cook, Grow, Guthrie, Harris, Kohl, Lakey, Lent, Okuniewicz, Rabe, Ruchti, Semmelroth, Shippy, Taylor, Ward-Engelking, Wintrow, Woodward, Zito, ZuiderveldAbsent and excused – GallowayFloor Sponsor - NicholsRet’d to HouseMajor
- Vote recorded Read third time in full –. Result: fail.Upper
- Mar 25Read second time; filed for Third ReadingMinor
- Mar 24Reported out of Committee with Do Pass Recommendation; Filed for second readingMinor
- Mar 11Introduced, read first time; referred to: Commerce & Human ResourcesMinor
- Mar 11Received from the House passed; filed for first reading
- Mar 10Rules Suspended: Ayes 69 Nays 0 Abs/Excd 1, read in full as required – PASSED - 53-15-2AYES – Alfieri, Barbieri, Beiswenger, Bingham, Boyle, Bruce, Burgoyne, Cannon, Cayler, Cheatum, Cornilles, Crane(12), Crane(13), Dygert, Ehardt, Ehlers, Erickson(Larsen), Fuhriman, Hall(Stone), Handy, Harris, Hawkins, Healey, Hill, Holtzclaw, Hostetler, Manwaring, McCann, Mendive, Mickelsen, Miller, Monks, Nelsen, Palmer, Petzke, Pickett, Pohanka, Price, Rasor, Raybould, Redman, Rubel, Scott, Shepherd, Shirts, Tanner(13), Tanner(14), Vander Woude, Veile, Weber, Wheeler, Wisniewski, Mr. SpeakerNAYS – Berch, Egbert, Furniss, Galaviz, Gannon, Garner, Green, Haws, Leavitt, Marmon, Mathias, Mitchell, Raymond, Skaug, ThompsonAbsent – Church, SauterFloor Sponsors - Scott & PriceTitle apvd - to SenatePassed 1st Chamber
- Vote recorded Rules Suspended: Ayes 69 Nays 0 Abs/Excd 1, read in full as required –. Result: pass.Lower
- Mar 10Read second time as amended; Filed for Third ReadingMinor
- Mar 9Read first time as amended; filed for Second Reading
- Mar 9Reported Engrossed; Filed for First Reading of Engrossed Bills
- Mar 6Bill as Amended Referred to JRA for Engrossing
- Mar 6Amendments Referred to the JRA for Printing
- Mar 6Reported out without recommendation as amended
- Mar 6Referred to the Committee of the Whole
- Mar 4U.C. to be placed on General Orders, no objection
- Mar 3Read second time; Filed for Third ReadingMinor
- Mar 2Reported out of Committee with Do Pass Recommendation, Filed for Second ReadingMinor
- Feb 23Reported Printed and Referred to Business
- Feb 20Introduced, read first time, referred to JRA for PrintingIntroduced
Consumer ProtectionTechnology