Hacker News Reader

Comment by some_furry | Hacker News Reader

I'm seeing mixed things about HR 987 and S 401 online. There are resistbot campaigns claiming that this law will do the exact opposite of what we want.

https://resist.bot/letters/eb93c1f2-0b25-4fb3-b080-5e75f9c5c...

EDIT: I decided to blog about this topic. https://soatok.blog/2025/07/24/against-the-censorship-of-adu...

View on HN

Read the legislation for yourself.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/987/...

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/401...

I don't see a basis for the assertion by the resistbot letter that it could "force banks to cut off services to" "marginalized communities". It actually appears to do the opposite - banks that cut off services to law-abiding people would lose their access to the Fed lending window.

> Read the legislation for yourself.

I tried. My brain isn't very good at understanding the effects of law, only the literal and logical structure of its changes.

> I don't see a basis for the assertion by the resistbot letter that it could "force banks to cut off services to" "marginalized communities". It actually appears to do the opposite - banks that cut off services to law-abiding people would lose their access to the Fed lending window.

I'm inclined to agree, but I'm not a lawyer. I would be a rather awful one if I tried to become one.

I'm not a lawyer and wasn't familiar with the bill until it was brought up in this thread. Looking at the text of the bill I'd guess that it's because the bill specifically calls for making risk determination on an individual basis[1] rather than for broad categories. The worry would be that despite the bill calling for banks to make these determinations based on "quantitative, impartial risk-based standards", this would actually give them more leeway to discriminate in a much more targeted way.

[1] §2.10 https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/401...

This is a rather paranoid reading of the bill, and I don't think the clause you cite has the effect you describe. For one thing, it's in the "Findings" section, which is not operative statutory text - it's a statement of opinion to describe the authors' state of mind at the time the bill was written. Further, in the scenario you describe - a bank cutting off services after an individualized risk assessment - if the cut-off customer was in compliance with the law, 4(c) causes the bank to lose access to the Fed window, which is basically game over for them. Today, banks can cut off services for nearly any reason with little recourse. If the bill passes, banks will need to be extremely careful when cutting off services to individuals.

I appreciate the thorough response! Again, I'm not a lawyer or even very familiar with it. I looked up the concerns people had, and then tried to find the bit which seemed likely to cause that concern.

I don't know if it sounds likely, and you seem more familiar with this kinda thing than I am, but given the erosion of a bunch of norms I can understand why people would have much less trust in any sort of regulators actually verifying that banks were following the law or their ability to win a lawsuit. Do you know if this would allow private action?

> Do you know if this would allow private action?

Yes - Sec. 8(c) establishes the right of a debanked person to take civil action (and recover attorney's fees) against the offending bank. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/987/...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com