Loading policy item
HB 4141
This proposal did not become law. HB 4141 would have established a comprehensive regulatory framework for debt resolution service providers in Oregon, requiring registration with the Department of Consumer and Business Services (DCBS), mandatory surety bonds, strict fee structures tied exclusively to actual debt savings, consumer-owned dedicated accounts, detailed disclosures, and prohibitions on deceptive practices. Potential effects would have included the prohibition of unregistered operations, the elimination of upfront fees for debt resolution services, enhanced consumer protections regarding fund safety and termination rights, and increased compliance costs and administrative oversight for service providers.
Generated explanation · Introduced · Analyzed 8/19/2026 · Open official Introduced text
This proposal did not become law.
Generated analysis of Introduced text; it does not establish that the bill applies to you. Read the full decision brief.
No upcoming event is verified in the available records.
Plain-language analysis
Generated analysis, not an official summary or legal advice. Confirm with linked Oregon documents.
This proposal did not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would have required if enacted.
HB 4141 would have established a comprehensive regulatory framework for debt resolution service providers in Oregon, requiring registration with the Department of Consumer and Business Services (DCBS), mandatory surety bonds, strict fee structures tied exclusively to actual debt savings, consumer-owned dedicated accounts, detailed disclosures, and prohibitions on deceptive practices. Potential effects would have included the prohibition of unregistered operations, the elimination of upfront fees for debt resolution services, enhanced consumer protections regarding fund safety and termination rights, and increased compliance costs and administrative oversight for service providers.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The text aligns debt resolution regulations with federal standards and imposes strict fee and fund-handling rules, suggesting a rationale to curb predatory practices where providers charged upfront fees, misappropriated consumer funds, or made deceptive promises about debt outcomes.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Would have had to register with DCBS, pay fees, file surety bonds ($10k-$50k), submit fingerprints, comply with detailed operational rules (dedicated accounts, monthly statements, annual reports), restrict fees to contingency-only based on actual savings, and adhere to strict disclosure and advertising bans. Non-compliance risks registration denial, suspension, revocation, civil penalties, and bond claims.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Subject to updated definitions separating them from debt resolution services, mandatory registration, and specific disclosure requirements regarding fee structures, credit impacts, and fund handling if they do not hold consumer funds.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Gain protections including mandatory dedicated accounts where they retain ownership of funds, prohibition on upfront fees, clear disclosures of tax and credit risks, right to terminate services at any time without penalty, detailed monthly account statements, and the ability to sue providers and their surety bonds for violations.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Gains authority to maintain a registry, adopt rules, conduct examinations, issue subpoenas, require statements under oath, charge investigation costs, and enforce compliance through registration denial, suspension, revocation, and civil penalties. Administrative costs are funded by provider fees.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Cannot receive cease-and-desist notices from providers; would have had to confirm debt resolution for a provider to claim a debt is resolved; retain rights to pursue collection if consumers stop payments.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Providers would have had to implement dedicated account systems with insured institutions, change fee collection to contingency-only based on verified savings, maintain extensive records for up to five years, and ensure all marketing complies with FTC rules and bans on paid reviews.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Consumers could have terminated agreements at any time via written or oral notice, triggering immediate notification to dedicated account providers and protection against further fees for unearned services.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
DCBS could have examined provider records, investigate out-of-state activities, and compel testimony, with non-compliance subject to contempt proceedings.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Providers face new costs for registration, bonds, compliance infrastructure, and annual reporting, which might have been passed to consumers or lead to market exit for smaller operators.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Consumer with significant unsecured debt
A consumer owes $80,000 in credit card debt. They engage a compliant debt resolution provider who uses a dedicated account to hold funds the consumer owns. The provider successfully negotiates settlements saving $40,000. The consumer pays fees only on the savings, receives monthly statements showing exact progress, and terminates the service after one month due to stress without penalty. The consumer retains full access to remaining funds, avoids bankruptcy, and prevents foreclosure because the provider's compliance ensures no cease-and-desist notices are sent that could have triggered default clauses.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Small debt resolution provider and consumers
A small provider operating across state lines fails to update fingerprints or renew registration, causing DCBS to revoke their registration and seize bond funds for past violations. The provider collapses, leaving hundreds of Oregon consumers with unresolved debts and no recourse against the defunct entity. Consumers face aggressive creditor litigation because the provider's collapse halts negotiations, and the strict fee restrictions prevent the provider from charging upfront fees that might have sustained operations during a downturn.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
The text would have permitted contingency fees and dedicated accounts but would have restricted fee calculations and referral compensation. Weak enforcement could have allowed providers to exploit ambiguities in savings calculations or misclassify services to avoid registration.
Sources · Introduced
The measure balances robust consumer protections against fund misuse and deceptive marketing against increased regulatory burdens that might have raised costs for providers and limit service availability.
Potential effect if enacted: Prevents fraud and fund misappropriation by mandating dedicated accounts where consumers retain ownership.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Would have eliminated upfront fees, aligning provider incentives with actual debt resolution outcomes.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Aligns state regulations with federal standards (FTC Rule 255) and enhances transparency through mandatory disclosures and statements.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Increased compliance costs and administrative barriers might have reduced the availability of debt relief services or drive providers out of the Oregon market.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Consumers might have faced higher effective fees if providers pass compliance costs to them or if reduced competition limits options.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Model self-rating: high. The bill text provides explicit provisions for registration, definitions, operational rules, fee restrictions, and enforcement mechanisms. The analysis is grounded directly in the supplied text without reliance on external speculation. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
Possible effects if adopted; not current bill text.
This proposal has not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would require if enacted.
The amendment carves out five specific categories of professionals and public entities from the bill’s regulatory definition of “debt resolution service provider,” meaning they would not be subject to registration, bonding, fee restrictions, or operational requirements if adopted.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment likely aims to prevent regulatory overlap or unintended compliance burdens on entities that already operate under distinct legal frameworks, such as utilities handling utility arrears, judges and mediators performing quasi-judicial functions, and debt management providers operating under separate statutory rules.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Unaffected directly, but market dynamics may shift if excluded groups previously offered similar debt settlement services.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
Exempt from debt resolution registration and bonding; could continue administering consumer payment plans without triggering the bill’s regulatory requirements.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Clarified that their role in facilitating debt settlements does not classify them as regulated service providers, preserving their existing statutory immunities and scopes of practice.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Explicitly separated from debt resolution providers, preventing regulatory conflation and ensuring each category follows its own compliance pathway.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
Would reduce administrative and compliance costs for excluded entities by keeping them outside the bill’s registration, surety bond, and disclosure mandates.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Maintains a clear regulatory boundary between debt resolution services and other financial, legal, or adjudicative functions, directing enforcement resources toward entities that primarily operate as debt resolution businesses.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
Consumers who utilize utility payment plans, judicial settlements, or mediator-facilitated resolutions would not receive the bill’s specific consumer protections (e.g., fee caps, mandatory disclosures, dedicated account rules) unless those services are independently regulated elsewhere.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
Municipal utilities and electrical cooperatives
Potential effect if enacted: A municipal utility successfully negotiates complex, multi-year payment restructurings for tens of thousands of delinquent customers without navigating the bill’s registration and bonding requirements, preserving administrative capacity for core infrastructure maintenance while avoiding regulatory duplication.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
Consumers relying on mediator or arbitrator services
Potential effect if enacted: An unlicensed operator routinely charges high fees to resolve consumer debts while claiming exemption under the mediator/arbitrator clause, leaving consumers with fewer statutory safeguards than intended by the broader bill and increasing the risk of unresolved disputes.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
The exemption relies on precise professional boundaries; without clear operational limits or monitoring, entities could stretch their roles to perform debt resolution as a primary business while claiming incidental or professional status.
Sources · Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
The amendment balances regulatory precision against consumer protection by excluding established professional and public entities from new rules, which would reduce compliance burdens but may leave consumers in those niches with fewer statutory safeguards.
Potential effect if enacted: Prevents regulatory overlap and preserves administrative capacity for utilities and legal professionals.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
Would clarify statutory boundaries, reducing confusion for entities that already operate under distinct licensing or immunity frameworks.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
Would create potential loopholes if exemptions are broadly interpreted or poorly monitored, allowing unregulated debt settlement activities to persist.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Consumers in exempt categories lose access to the bill’s specific consumer protections, such as fee transparency, dedicated account rules, and mandatory arbitration disclosures.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -6 — proposed amendment
Model self-rating: high. The amendment text explicitly lists exclusions to a statutory definition. The analysis is grounded solely in the provided proposed amendment and introduced bill context, with all inferences clearly labeled and bounded. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
7 records currently loaded
Records available in the current snapshot.
Earliest loaded signal
Introduced bill text posted
Posted Jan 28, 2026, 3:25 PM PST
Not a qualifying replacement
Only the introduced bill is available as adopted text; no qualifying replacement is established.
AI assessment dated 2026-09-29. This classification is separate from enactment and legal effect.
Evidence snapshot: 2026-09-29. Later legislative records are not automatically reassessed.
Policy purpose: broadly retained.
Reviewer: /root/review_recent_a · 2026-09-29
Not a qualifying replacement
Only the introduced bill is available as adopted text; no qualifying replacement is established.
Policy purpose: broadly retained.
“SECTION 1. ORS 697.602 is amended to read: 7 697.602. As used in ORS 697.602 to 697.842: 8 (1) “Consumer” means: 9 (a) An individual resident of this state who is obligated or is allegedly obligated to pay a debt 10 and on whose behalf a debt management service provider performs or agrees to perf”
Introduced
“SECTION 1. ORS 697.602 is amended to read: 7 697.602. As used in ORS 697.602 to 697.842: 8 (1) “Consumer” means: 9 (a) An individual resident of this state who is obligated or is allegedly obligated to pay a debt 10 and on whose behalf a debt management service provider performs or agrees to perf”
Introduced
Reviewer: /root/review_recent_b · 2026-09-29
Not a qualifying replacement
The proposal retains debt-resolution regulation and was not adopted.
Policy purpose: broadly retained.
“SECTION 1. ORS 697.602 is amended to read: 7 697.602. As used in ORS 697.602 to 697.842: 8 (1) “Consumer” means: 9 (a) An individual resident of this state who is obligated or is allegedly obligated to pay a debt 10 a”
Introduced
“Gut and stuff” research tracks substantial replacements of a bill’s substantive text. Policy change is assessed separately: a rewrite can retain the same purpose. A proposed amendment is counted as adopted only when the official evidence supports adoption.
Two subscription subagents independently examine the same official evidence without seeing each other’s answers. An additional subagent can adjudicate disagreements against the sources. Unsupported conclusions, missing evidence, and unresolved disagreements remain uncertain. Agreement is not a guarantee of accuracy.
Session totals count each HB or SB once, including bills that did not become law. Resolutions and memorials are excluded. Counts describe the research inventory, independent of your search, interests, following, and status filters. Missing or unassessed bills are not negative findings.
The replacement watch is a rule, not an AI assessment: a bill whose introduced text is a short study bill (a study word, at most three sections, under 400 words) or a blank form (a run of blanks, 300 words or fewer) is listed once a proposed amendment is posted for it. In the 2021 to 2026 training sessions, 271 of 374 such bills were later replaced; the rate is historical and says nothing about a particular bill’s intent.
Assessments are published research snapshots. Opening this page reads saved research and does not run an AI review. Refreshes require another evidence export, independent assessment, and validated import; reports do not continuously refresh. Each bill’s evidence and reviewer provenance are available on its detail page.
Follow the official text for HB 4141 and every amendment branch. Connections come from each amendment's stated base. Horizontal position shows when each document was first posted, when available.
Click a card to isolate its connected lines; use View summary to jump to its details. Horizontal position shows first posting time in Pacific Time. Drag or use the arrow keys to pan. Pinch with two fingers on mobile, or zoom with the controls, +/− keys, or Control/Command + scroll; press 0 to reset. Dashed branches remained proposals.
Selected document summary
Targeted changes
What the document says to change
On page 2 of the printed bill, delete lines 16 and 17 and insert: 2 “(b) ‘Debt resolution service provider’ does not include: 3 “(A) A debt management service provider; 4 “(B) A public utility, as defined in ORS 757.
Official records (1)
No deeper official pre-number history was found.
Chief sponsors: Representative Vikki Breese-Iverson
Regular sponsors: Representative Emerson Levy, Representative Kim Wallan
Records already listed in Activity are not repeated here.
Official origin records are incomplete; missing facts are not inferred.
7 events
Full timeline
7 entries shown.
In committee upon adjournment.
IS_Impact HB 4141 6
Revenue Impact Statement
Amendment -6 proposed
Public Hearing held.
Referred to Commerce and Consumer Protection.
First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk.
“Digest: Says what a person that bargains with a consumer's creditors to lower debt can and may not do in this state. (Flesch Readability Score: 72.7). Requires a person that provides debt resolution services to consumers in this state to register with the Department of Consumer and Business Services and regulates the activities of debt resolution service providers. Takes effect on the 91st day following adjournment sine die.”
Oregon updates this record in place. This page uses the latest text; an exact original snapshot is unavailable.
Confirm with the official record.
Supplemental, source-linked analysis from project researchers and community contributors. It is separate from Oregon's official record.