PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Sep 9, 1997
Dual-Use Debit Cardholder Protection Act of 1997 - Amends the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to impose consumer liability for unauthorized electronic fund transfers only if the issuer has provided a unique identifier, such as a photograph (as under current law), retina scan, and other named devices with which the user can be identified as the authorized person. Eliminates a signature as such a unique identifier. Cites circumstances under which a consumer shall be liable for an unauthorized electronic fund transfer not exceeding $50 if the transfer did not require the use of a unique identifier, such as a photograph, fingerprint, or retina scan. Precludes consumer liability for unauthorized electronic fund transfers in the absence of a consumer's timely receipt of notice of liability for such transfers, and of the advisability of prompt reporting of any loss, theft, or unauthorized use. Prohibits the issuance of dual-use debit cards to initiate an electronic fund transfer without the use of a unique identifier unless certain statutory requirements are met, and the issuer has provided a clear and conspicuous disclosure that the use of such card may not require the use of a unique identifier.
People & committees
Sen. Reed, Jack [D-RI] · D–RI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1154 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1154 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1154 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1154 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.