On January 23, Senators Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) and Roger Marshall (R., Kan.) introduced a new version of their Credit Card Competition Act (CCCA) that allows progressive state attorneys general to sue on behalf of residents. The revised CCCA has been added as an amendment to the Senate Agriculture Committee’s markup of the CLARITY Act, which is crypto-focused legislation, and has drawn fire from conservative groups and credit unions.
The Defense Credit Union Council (DCUC), an association that represents credit unions that serve military members and their family members, joined a coalition opposing the bill. DCUC’s chief advocacy officer Jason Stverak told the Washington Reporter, “The most consequential change in the latest version of the Credit Card Competition Act amendment in Senate Ag Committee is the decision to hand enforcement authority to state attorneys general. That shift would replace a uniform, federal supervisory framework with a patchwork of 50 different enforcement regimes, inviting costly litigation and regulatory uncertainty rather than clear consumer benefits.”
The CCCA has been one of the most contentious policy fights in Washington since its introduction, with proponents arguing it would lower costs by mandating unaffiliated card networks for credit card transactions. Banks, credit unions, and conservative groups have argued the mandate would weaken fraud protections, end rewards programs, and ultimately raise costs for consumers.
Earlier in January, as the Washington Reporter covered, President Trump came out in support of a different version of the CCCA, before the revised version was introduced with new powers for state attorneys general.
The conservative consumer advocacy organization CASE announced in an analysis that the revised CCCA represents a “new credit card power grab” that would empower state attorneys general. CASE argues the bill would invite litigation driven by political motives, not consumer harm, and could result in nationwide settlements that benefit trial lawyers and state offices rather than cardholders.
The specific provision that CASE cites as a substantial change is the addition of “parens patriae authority”, which allows state attorneys general to sue on behalf of residents and extract financial settlements from banks. CASE claims that this provision would “[A]llow officials such as Letitia James, Keith Ellison, and Rob Bonta to bring sweeping actions that resemble government-run class-action lawsuits. These cases could seek enormous financial penalties and court-ordered mandates with nationwide impact—all driven by enforcement priorities set in state capitols, not by consumers or market forces.”
Sources tell the Washington Reporter that CASE’s analysis quickly made the rounds on the Hill and in policy circles focused on financial services. One senior Senate counsel told the Washington Reporter that the revised version was likely to cause problems among Senate Republicans, especially conservatives who are skeptical of progressive state attorneys general. “This bill was already controversial because it splits up some of the GOP’s strongest supporters, and the new version gives a slush fund gift to Letitia James. Many members are not going to be happy with this.”
Next steps remain uncertain. The Senate Agriculture Committee may vote on inclusion of the CCCA in its CLARITY markup. However, if the amendment passes with predominantly Democratic support, Hill sources tell us that could cause the markup to be pulled entirely by Chairman John Boozman (R., Ark.). One GOP Hill source noted leadership is wary of advancing legislation that would damage credit unions going into the 2026 midterms.
The Washington Reporter will be covering the updated version of CCCA closely, and will report this week on where House Republicans stand on the legislation in the wake of President Trump’s endorsement.