Indiana and Maryland became the most recent states to enact legislation regulating earned wage access (EWA) services, with Indiana passing House Enrolled Act 1125 on May 6, and Maryland passing House Bill 1294 on May 20.

EWA services allow consumers to access their earned wages before they would otherwise receive them based on typical pay schedules and are generally categorized as either “employer-partnered” or “direct-to-consumer.” For employer-partnered services, EWA providers typically partner with a consumer’s employer to determine the amount of the consumer’s earned wages and to recover EWA proceeds through payroll deductions. For direct-to-consumer services, providers typically obtain information regarding the consumer’s earned wages directly from the consumer and recover EWA proceeds through automated bank account withdrawals.

EWA services have been the subject of significant debate over the past several years, particularly with regard to whether they constitute loans, in which case they would be subject to traditional lending laws. In addition, regulation of EWA services has been inconsistent, with numerous states passing EWA laws that take varying approaches while also imposing many overlapping requirements and prohibitions.

This is exemplified by Maryland’s and Indiana’s EWA laws. For example, Maryland’s law—which becomes effective October 1, 2025—classifies direct-to-consumer EWA services as loans subject to the Maryland Consumer Loan Law, but also states that a licensed provider is exempt from other Maryland laws that address lending, credit, and debt. On the other hand, Indiana’s law—which becomes effective January 1, 2026—clarifies that EWA services are not loans.

At the same time, both Indiana’s and Maryland’s laws impose many similar requirements on EWA providers. For example, they both create comprehensive licensing regimes that require EWA providers to obtain licenses and submit regular reports regarding their products. Both laws also include the following key requirements and prohibitions:

• Disclosures: Providers must fully and clearly disclose all fees associated with EWA services and inform consumers of their rights before entering into an agreement with a consumer.

• No-Cost Option: Providers must offer at least one option to obtain EWA proceeds at no cost to the consumer and clearly explain how to elect this option.
• Voluntary Tips: Providers may solicit, charge, or receive tips, but in doing so they are required to: (i) clearly disclose that tips are voluntary and that EWA services are not in any way contingent on the consumer paying a tip; (ii) set any default tip at $0; (iii) not increase fees because the consumer did not provide a tip; and (iv) abstain from representing that tips provide a benefit to any specific individual.
• Expedite Fees: Providers may charge a fee for expedited delivery of EWA proceeds but must cap fees at specified amounts. Indiana caps fees at the greater of $5 or 5% of the amount of the proceeds, while Maryland caps fees at $5 for proceeds up to $75 and $7.50 for proceeds greater than $75.
• Privacy and Security Compliance: Providers must comply with all applicable local, state, and federal privacy and information security laws.
• Fee Reimbursement: Providers must reimburse consumers for any overdraft or nonsufficient funds fees caused by the provider in certain instances.

• Fee and Tip Sharing: Providers cannot share with an employer any portion of the fees or tips received from consumers.
• Credit Reporting: Providers cannot obtain a consumer’s credit report for purposes of determining eligibility for or the terms of EWA services. In addition, providers cannot report a consumer’s failure to repay EWA proceeds to credit reporting agencies.
• Debt Collection: Providers cannot engage in third-party debt collection, litigation, or debt sales to collect EWA proceeds, fees, or tips that a consumer has not repaid.
• Charging Penalties and Interest: Providers cannot charge late fees, interest, or any other penalties for a failure to pay outstanding proceeds, fees, or tips.
• Exemptions: Certain entities, such as banks, credit unions, savings associations, and other financial institutions are not subject to either Indiana’s or Maryland’s EWA licensing requirements. In addition, both states’ laws explain that EWA services that are provided in compliance with each respective law do not constitute money transmission and are not subject to certain other laws, such as those governing payroll deductions.

While Indiana and Maryland now impose similar and overlapping requirements and prohibitions on EWA providers, they also include many nuanced differences. The passage of these laws, in addition to various other EWA laws such as those passed by Arkansas, Kansas, Nevada,

Missouri, and California (which has passed EWA regulations but not a specific EWA law), serve as a reminder to EWA providers that they must regularly assess their practices to ensure compliance with an inconsistent and shifting regulatory landscape, particularly with no specific federal law governing EWA services.

Troutman Pepper Locke State Attorneys General Team

	Ashley Taylor – Co-leader and Firm Vice Chair Ashley is co-leader of the firm’s nationally ranked State Attorneys General practice, vice chair of the firm, and a partner in its Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement (RISE) Practice Group. He helps his clients navigate the complexities involved with multistate attorneys general investigations and enforcement actions, federal agency actions, and accompanying litigation.
	Clay Friedman – Co-leader Clay co-leads the firm’s State Attorneys General practice and is nationally ranked by Chambers USA for AG Government Relations and in Best Lawyers for Advertising Law. He has dedicated his entire career to state attorney general and federal work, serving for nearly a decade in a senior role and more than 25+ years in private practice. Clay focuses his practice on helping industry-leading companies mitigate the risks associated with state and federal regulatory investigations and associated litigation.
	Chris Carlson Chris advises clients on regulatory, civil, and criminal investigations and litigation. With a background as an assistant attorney general, he provides practical guidance to clients with matters involving state attorneys general and federal regulatory agencies.
	Lauren Fincher Lauren has vast experience handling state attorneys general investigations, navigating complex regulatory compliance matters, and providing strategic counsel in enforcement actions across various industries. She helps clients manage high-stakes regulatory matters and guides them through complex legal landscapes.
	Stephen Piepgrass Stephen leads the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement (RISE) Practice Group, representing clients in single and multistate enforcement actions, including inquiries and investigations, as well as litigation involving state attorneys general and other state and federal governmental enforcement bodies. He has significant experience handling actions with federal agencies, including the CFPB and FTC, as well as single plaintiff and class action litigation for clients in highly regulated sectors such as financial services, health care, pharmaceutical, and education.
	Michael Yaghi Mike handles high-profile state attorneys general, FTC, and CFPB investigations by advising clients through these complex government inquiries. He assists clients through the entire life cycle of investigations, from regulatory enforcement through formal litigation.
	Samuel E. “Gene” Fishel Gene is a former regulator with two decades of experience who has overseen state privacy and cybersecurity regulation enforcement, led national, multistate attorneys general privacy investigations, and prosecuted computer crimes at the state and federal levels. He has served at the forefront of state attorney general and federal enforcement, and utilizes this experience to proficiently represent client interests.
	Jay Myers Jay assists clients in heavily regulated industries, including health care, energy, insurance, emerging industries, and data privacy. He provides both regulatory legal advice and government relations strategies. Jay’s past and current clients include Fortune 10 companies, startups, nonprofits, industry associations, and advocacy groups. Recognizing that state government matters are often complex and multifaceted, he utilizes regulatory guidance, government advocacy, or both in tandem to deliver tailored solutions for each client’s unique needs.
	Jessica Birdsong Jessica is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement Practice Group. She received her J.D. from the University of Richmond School of Law, magna cum laude, where she served as associate articles editor of the Journal of Law & Technology.
	Blake R. Christopher Blake collaborates with clients on matters related to government contracting, investigations, and disputes. His senior-level government experience generates valuable insights and strategies for clients across a variety of industries.
	Nick Gouverneur Nick is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement Practice Group. He received his J.D. from the University of Illinois College of Law, where he served as a member of the Journal of Law, Technology & Policy.
	Troy Homesley Troy is an accomplished litigator who has represented and defended clients across a wide range of complex, high-stakes disputes at both the trial and appellate levels. He has represented technology companies, business executives, law firms, investment funds, high-ranking federal officials, international non-profits, and asylum seekers. Troy draws on his broad litigation experience to advise clients before litigation arises, while claims are pending or threatened, and leading up to and through trial and appeals.
	Natalia Jacobo Natalia is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy and Enforcement (RISE) practice, based on the West Coast. She routinely counsels clients on a variety of state and federal regulatory matters, with a particular emphasis on consumer protection and data privacy matters.
	Namrata Kang Namrata (Nam) is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement (RISE) Practice Group, based in the Washington, D.C. office. She routinely advises clients on a wide variety of state and federal regulatory matters, with a particular emphasis on state consumer protection laws relating to consumer financial services and marketing and advertising. Nam’s experience transcends multiple industries, including financial services, telecommunications, media, and sports betting.
	Michael Lafleur Michael is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy, and Enforcement Practice Group. Based out of the firm’s Boston office, Mike has deep experience in litigation, investigations, and other regulatory matters involving state-level regulators and state attorneys general.
	Lane Page Lane specializes in federal and state regulatory investigations and complex civil litigation. He focuses on representing financial institutions and other businesses, with a particular emphasis on consumer protection and fair lending issues.
	Dascher Pasco Dascher is an attorney within the Regulatory Investigations, Strategy, and Enforcement practice, based in the Richmond office. She joined our firm after working in personal injury and medical malpractice for a Virginia trial law firm. Dascher brings varied legal experience to the firm with strong litigation and regulatory strategy capabilities.
	Kyara Rivera Rivera Kyara is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement Practice Group. She received her J.D. from the University of Richmond School of Law, cum laude, where she served as publications and online editor of the Public Interest Law Review.
	Trey Smith Trey focuses his practice on representing and advising regulated utilities before state public utility commissions. He routinely helps clients obtain certificates of public convenience and necessity for transmission infrastructure. In this role, Trey works with his clients’ subject-matter experts to manage administrative proceedings, including by preparing initial filings; responding to discovery requests; drafting rebuttal testimony; and litigating any disputed issues.
	Daniel Waltz Dan helps clients navigate all aspects highly regulated relationships between industry participants and federal, state and local governments. Whether engaging with regulators, negotiating transactions or representing clients in the courtroom, he delivers solutions that help his clients achieve their strategic goals.
	Cole White Cole is a member of the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy and Enforcement (RISE) group. He has a decade of experience working in the attorney general community, having joined the firm from the Wyoming Office of the Attorney General, where he was assistant attorney general.
	Stephanie Kozol Stephanie is Troutman Pepper Locke’s senior government relations manager in the state attorneys general department.