← Back to bills and search results
2025 · Regular session · House bill
HB4134
HB4134 allows the holder of a motor-vehicle retail installment contract, or its agent, to collect an electronic-payment processing fee only if it meets cost, dollar-limit and consumer-choice conditions.
Official caption: Relating to a convenience fee for processing electronic payments for motor vehicles.
Official report lists House author(s): Lujan. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.
Bill explanation published · Version and amendment review scope is stated below · Individual amendment records may not be separately annotated.
Bill highlights
Selected points from the published explanation. Follow each point to its source-linked context; conditions and limits may matter.
- HB4134 allows the holder of a motor-vehicle retail installment contract, or its agent, to collect an electronic-payment processing fee only if it meets cost, dollar-limit and consumer-choice conditions.
- The fee must be reasonably related to the holder's or agent's processing expense and cannot exceed the smaller of $10 or 5% of the payment.
- The holder or agent must offer a nonelectronic payment method without a fee and may not make electronic payment the expected form of payment.
- The provision concerns payments under covered retail installment contracts, not every vehicle-related payment, DMV charge or unrelated loan.
What does it do?
HB4134 allows the holder of a motor-vehicle retail installment contract, or its agent, to collect an electronic-payment processing fee only if it meets cost, dollar-limit and consumer-choice conditions. Electronic payments include credit cards, debit cards, electronic transfers, electronic checks and other electronic methods. The bill became law without the governor’s signature June 20, 2025, and took effect September 1, 2025. Final law · History
The fee must be reasonably related to the holder’s or agent’s processing expense and cannot exceed the smaller of $10 or 5% of the payment. For example, the dollar/percentage ceiling is $5 for a $100 payment and $10 for a $300 payment; the separate processing-expense condition still applies. These are maximums, not required charges. Section 348.416(b)(1)–(2)
The holder or agent must offer a nonelectronic payment method without a fee and may not make electronic payment the expected form of payment. Before the buyer agrees to pay electronically, it must disclose the fee amount, the availability of a fee-free alternative—including check, cash or money order—and the restriction against making electronic payment the expected method. This does not require all electronic payment options to be free. Section 348.416(b)(3)
The provision concerns payments under covered retail installment contracts, not every vehicle-related payment, DMV charge or unrelated loan. The existing definition of “holder” includes a retail seller and an assignee or transferee of the contract. Finance Code 348.001
What changed along the way?
The substantive fee limits and disclosures are the same in the introduced, House committee, House-passed, Senate committee and final versions. The effective-date sentence was cleaned up from “This section is effective” to “This Act takes effect,” without changing September 1, 2025. Both committees reported without amendments, and the official amendment index lists none. Introduced · Version index · Amendment index
For the full amendment record, open the official amendment index.
Official bill versions
Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.
Who could benefit—and who could bear the costs?
Contract holders and their agents gain express, conditional authority to recover electronic-processing costs. Buyers who choose electronic payment can bear that fee, while receiving advance disclosure, a cap and a fee-free nonelectronic alternative. The statute does not establish a universal fee or prove that every holder’s processing costs justify the maximum.
The latest fiscal note anticipated no significant state fiscal impact and no local-government fiscal implication. It explained that the relevant financial regulators are self-directed, semi-independent agencies responsible for their operating costs and prohibited from imposing those costs on general revenue. This estimate does not mean buyers face no added charges. May 22 fiscal note
Review boundary: This describes the new statutory fee conditions, not a finding that a particular charge, contract or payment arrangement complies with all applicable law.
Official sources
- Bill history and latest recorded action
- Bill versions, analyses and fiscal notes
- Action history and votes
- Amendment index
Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.