We are a bank in PA that happen to have three customers who have a credit card with us and live in the state of CA. We received information today that says effective July 1, 2002 we are to notify cardholders via their billing statement of the amount of time it will take to pay off an account balance and the interest that will accrue if the cardholder makes only minimum payments. Is anyone fimilar with this and can you help us with this requirement?

The bill was AB865 and it adds Section 1748.13 to the Civil Code
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=civ&group=01001-02000&file=1748.9-1748.13

Good luck if your processor has not already addressed this issue.

If you need legal information, you can probably contact Bankers Compliance Group http://www.bankerscompliancegroup.com which is run by the lawfirm of Aldrich & Bonnefin out here in California.

Good news for some federally regulated institutions. The NCUA has taken an official position on the CA credit card law.

http://www.ncua.gov/ref/opinion_letters/2002/02-0638.html

U.S District Court in Sacramento is supposed to issue a ruling today on whether it will enjoin enforcement of this law based on federal preemption. Stay tuned!

Hot off the presses:

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/bayarea/news/breaking_news/3565579.htm

Does anyone know about an extension to this hearing date?

"It was a bitter pill for the state to swallow"

Credit card law is ruled invalid

The judge actual said the state was "meddeling in banking affairs" No that's a switch

I would have no problem with a requirement that we print a disclaimer on credit card statements that said "WARNING - If you make only your minimum payment, it will take you a very long time to payoff this balance and it will cost you a great deal in interest charges."

The problem with this law, and the one that the "consumer advocates" didn't seem to get was the REQUIREMENT for the PERSONALIZED schedule for repayment as well as the 24 hour staffing to answer detailed inquiries.

IMHO, the banking industry would have accepted a requriement for a generalized warning, and even, perhaps, the requirement that the consumer could request a repayment schedule to be mailed to them by sending in a request or pressing an option on a voice response system.

The requirements in this particular proposal were simply unrealistic. But of course, the "advocates" will use this as an example of how greedy and uncaring banks are.