Assembly committee advances bill clarifying third‑party billing firms aren’t debt collectors

The Assembly Banking and Finance Committee voted to pass SB 546 (Grayson) to the Appropriations Committee after proponents said the bill would clarify that third‑party billing administrators are not 'debt collectors' under California’s Debt Collection Licensing Act.

Assemblymember Blanca Rubio, substituting for Senator Grayson, presented the measure and asked members for an 'I' vote. She said the bill is intended to remove ambiguity that has created compliance burdens for firms that only perform administrative billing for utilities and housing.

Proponents told the committee they perform invoice preparation, calculations and customer service but do not engage in collection activities. "Our role is strictly limited to calculating utility charges, preparing invoices and statements, and providing customer service," said Shanta Paikian of Conservice. "We do not engage in any debt collection activities. We do not call, text, send demands for payment. We don't threaten litigation or eviction." Deborah Carlton of the California Apartment Association added that most uses are limited to utility billing and that landlords, not billing vendors, handle unpaid balances.

Paikian and Carlton said SB 546 adds billing administrators to existing statutory exemptions for businesses whose billing activities are incidental to another regulated function and that the bill still leaves in place consumer financial protections and civil‑code requirements governing billing practices.

A committee member asked what industry developments prompted the bill; Paikian said concerns centered on complying with the existing law and threats of litigation. With no witnesses in opposition present, the committee moved to a roll call. The secretary recorded members voting in favor and the chair announced, "That bill passes." The committee sent SB 546 to the Appropriations Committee.

SB 546 now awaits consideration in Appropriations. The hearing record shows proponents emphasized the bill is a narrow clarification that, they say, preserves consumer protections while reducing compliance uncertainty for administrative billing vendors.