Which place’s debt rules apply—and who can help?

S_SD PASS-01 — South Dakota provider market access and consumer fees

Actual fresh source-access date: October 25, 2026, Pacific time, America/Los_Angeles Actual model/mode: GPT-5.6 Sol Pro, regular Chat; no Deep Research Component boundary: Provider market access, classification, exemptions, consumer-fee structures, and conditional federal fee timing only. This does not accept South Dakota as complete, does not accept A066, and does not close the seven broader parent-state dimensions identified in the assignment.

Executive determination

1. South Dakota broadly defines debt adjusting. The definition expressly reaches custodial payment-distribution plans, debt management, debt pooling, budget counseling, and a fee-based contract to adjust, compromise, or discharge a debtor’s indebtedness. A noncustodial principal-reduction company therefore cannot avoid the chapter merely by leaving consumer funds with the consumer or an independent account administrator. South Dakota Consumer Protection
2. The default rule is prohibition, not ordinary licensing. Unless one of the ten statutory exceptions applies, engaging in the business is prohibited and constitutes a Class 2 misdemeanor. The practical residual access route for an otherwise nonexempt commercial provider is filing and maintaining an Attorney General-approved $50,000 bond. That is best described as a bond-based statutory exception and AG approval pathway—not a conventional debt-settlement license or registration. South Dakota Consumer Protection+1
3. No debt-adjusting-specific South Dakota fee ceiling was established. Chapter 37-34 contains no setup, monthly, settlement, per-debt, savings-based, percentage, aggregate, indexed, refund, or cancellation-fee formula. The one express fee-related exception condition is that the loan/disbursement exception in §37-34-3(8) requires the debt-adjusting services to be performed without compensation. No responsive debt-adjusting fee rule, adjustment notice, or official fee table was located in the official administrative-rule searches. State-law silence is not affirmative authorization of any particular fee. South Dakota Consumer Protection
4. South Dakota supplies no chapter-specific earned-fee trigger. Where the federal Telemarketing Sales Rule applies, it independently bars requesting or receiving a debt-relief fee until a debt has actually been altered under a valid customer-executed settlement, DMP, or similar agreement and the customer has made at least one payment under that agreement. The $50,000 state bond does not displace that federal rule. eCFR+1
5. The AG currently administers the bond route, but no public authorization roster was found. Current AG resources link the debt-adjusting statute and bond form; a July 2026 records schedule describes permanent bond records and AG approval for operation; and the FY2027 budget brief reports “Debt Adjustment Bonds” as an ongoing performance category. The AG’s public “Company Search,” however, is only a website-scam lookup and expressly does not establish legitimacy. South Dakota Consumer Protection+3

A. Substantive answers to the seven scope questions

1. Current classification of debt adjustment, settlement, negotiation, DMPs, and credit counseling

1.1 Operative definition

SDCL §37-34-1 has two significant layers:

• Its first sentence covers the classic custodial debt-pooling model: an express or implied contract under which a debtor periodically delivers money or another thing of value to a provider, which distributes it among specified creditors for consideration under an agreed plan.
• The definition then expands beyond custody. It expressly includes debt adjustment, budget counseling, debt management, debt pooling, holding oneself out as managing debts, and contracting for a fee to effect an adjustment, compromise, or discharge of an account, note, or other indebtedness.
• “Debt adjuster” includes a person who engages, attempts to engage, or offers to engage in the practice. South Dakota Consumer Protection

1.2 Business-model classification matrix

These classifications follow the operative language rather than marketing labels. Calling a program “financial wellness,” “credit advocacy,” “legal support,” or “negotiation software” does not control if the actual conduct is a fee-based effort to manage, adjust, compromise, or discharge debt. South Dakota Consumer Protection

1.3 Consumer versus business purpose

Unlike the federal TSR definition, South Dakota’s definition does not limit itself to unsecured consumer debts. It does not use a “personal, family, or household” qualifier. The safest bounded conclusion is therefore:

• Consumer debts are covered when the operative elements are present.
• Business debts are not affirmatively excluded, but comprehensive commercial-purpose application remains unresolved without a South Dakota interpretation.
• The exception for bona fide trade or mercantile associations arranging adjustments with business establishments does not itself establish that all other commercial-debt activity is covered or excluded. South Dakota Consumer Protection

2. Prohibited, authorized, or conditionally exempt models

2.1 Default prohibition

SDCL §37-34-2 provides that, except as allowed by §37-34-3, no person may engage in the business of debt adjusting; a violation is a Class 2 misdemeanor. This means a provider does not begin with an unrestricted right to operate and then merely add a registration. It must fit a statutory exception. South Dakota Consumer Protection

2.2 Complete exception map

The ten exceptions and their conditions are drawn from the complete text of §37-34-3. South Dakota Consumer Protection Chapter 54-13 defines an agricultural-credit mediation process, confirming that subsection (9) is not a generic “mediator” exemption. South Dakota Legislature+1

2.3 Commercial provider’s residual access route

For a for-profit principal-reduction or DMP provider that does not qualify under exceptions (1)–(9), §37-34-3(10) supplies the relevant route:

1. File a bond with the South Dakota Attorney General.
2. Obtain the Attorney General’s approval.
3. Maintain the bond.
4. Use a $50,000 penal sum.
5. Condition the bond on faithful performance and payment of the provider’s business obligations and damage claims. South Dakota Consumer Protection

The AG’s form itself says the bond is required for certain persons to conduct business legally in South Dakota and contains an express Attorney General approval line. South Dakota Consumer Protection

2.4 Why this is not an ordinary license

Neither §37-34-3 nor the current AG form calls the process a license. The state budget separately labels other activities as “registrations” while labeling this category “Debt Adjustment Bonds.” The most defensible description is:

A statutory exception from the prohibition, implemented through filing, maintaining, and obtaining AG approval of a prescribed surety bond.

That does not mean the bond resolves general corporate qualification, consumer-protection, lending, legal-practice, telemarketing, tax, or sector-specific laws. My LRC+1

3. State fee structures, limits, indexing, and refund conditions

3.1 What Chapter 37-34 establishes

The chapter’s complete operative text contains no other fee formula. South Dakota Consumer Protection

3.2 Administrative-rule and bulletin reconciliation

I searched the official South Dakota administrative-rule and rulemaking domains using the exact concepts:

• debt adjusting
• debt adjuster
• debt adjustment
• debt settlement
• debt management
• budget counseling
• debt pooling / debt-pooling
• SDCL 37-34

The responsive indexed results were unrelated uses of “debt” or “adjustment.” I did not locate a debt-adjusting-specific ARSD chapter, fee schedule, fee-adjustment notice, CPI bulletin, model-act adoption order, or current dollar-limit table. The interactive administrative-rule index itself requires JavaScript, and the separate rulemaking portal timed out during direct access, so the correct conclusion is a bounded negative search result, not an assertion that no unpublished or poorly indexed material can exist. South Dakota Legislature+2

3.3 Consequence of the absence of a state fee formula

The absence of a specific cap does not mean:

• every percentage is reasonable;
• any contract term is enforceable;
• advance payment is permissible;
• a bonded provider may deduct fees whenever it chooses;
• general deception, unconscionability, contract, fiduciary, custody, lending, or federal rules are displaced.

It means only that this provider-access/fees pass did not establish a debt-adjusting-specific South Dakota fee ceiling or earned-fee formula in Chapter 37-34 or a responsive administrative rule.

4. When fees may be requested or received

4.1 South Dakota chapter

Chapter 37-34 does not state a settlement-performance milestone, first-payment milestone, percentage-earned schedule, monthly accrual rule, or refund timing rule. The bond route therefore cannot itself be treated as permission to charge in advance. The sole express compensation condition is the zero-compensation requirement for the particular loan/disbursement exception in §37-34-3(8). South Dakota Consumer Protection

4.2 Federal TSR overlay—only when independently applicable

The current eCFR version checked was up to date through October 22, 2026 and indicated that Title 16 had last been amended October 19, 2026. eCFR

The TSR defines a debt-relief service as a represented program or service to renegotiate, settle, or otherwise alter payment or other terms of debt owed to unsecured creditors or collectors, including balance, interest, or fees. eCFR

For a covered transaction, 16 C.F.R. §310.4(a)(5)(i) bars requesting or receiving a debt-relief fee until all three conditions exist for at least one debt:

1. The seller or telemarketer has actually renegotiated, settled, reduced, or otherwise altered that debt under a settlement agreement, DMP, or similar valid contractual agreement executed by the customer.
2. The customer has made at least one payment under that customer–creditor or customer–collector agreement.
3. If debts are resolved individually, the fee attributed to the resolved debt follows one of the rule’s two allocation methods. eCFR+1

Permitted federal allocation methods

Method 1—proportional enrolled-balance allocation

fee for resolved debt=total contracted fee×that debt’s enrollment balancetotal enrollment balance\text{fee for resolved debt}

\text{total contracted fee} \times \frac{\text{that debt’s enrollment balance}} {\text{total enrollment balance}}fee for resolved debt=total contracted fee×total enrollment balancethat debt’s enrollment balance​The balances are those owed when enrolled.

Method 2—percentage of savings

fee=constant contracted savings percentage×(enrollment balance−amount actually paid to satisfy debt)\text{fee}

\text{constant contracted savings percentage} \times (\text{enrollment balance} - \text{amount actually paid to satisfy debt})fee=constant contracted savings percentage×(enrollment balance−amount actually paid to satisfy debt)The percentage cannot change from debt to debt. A provider cannot use the enrolled-balance method for one account and the savings method for another merely to maximize collection. eCFR

Dedicated-account conditions

A covered provider may require savings to be placed in a dedicated account only if:

• the institution is insured;
• the customer owns the funds and any interest;
• the administrator is not owned, controlled by, or affiliated with the debt-relief provider;
• the administrator does not pay or receive referral compensation involving the provider; and
• the customer can withdraw without penalty and receives all funds other than properly earned provider fees within seven business days. eCFR

Placing money into that consumer-owned account is not the same as the provider earning or receiving its fee.

TSR scope limitations

The TSR is not a universal fee statute for every South Dakota transaction. Among other limits:

• It concerns telemarketing and, for debt-relief purposes, unsecured debts.
• A truly unsolicited consumer-initiated call may fall within an exemption.
• Calls responding to debt-relief advertising or targeted direct mail are expressly removed from the otherwise applicable inbound-call exemptions.
• A qualifying face-to-face transaction may fall within the listed exemption, although specified residual TSR provisions remain.
• Business-to-business calls generally receive a separate exemption, subject to the regulation’s listed exceptions. eCFR

FTC staff guidance describes the debt-relief amendments as applying to for-profit sellers and telemarketers, explains that bona fide nonprofit organizations are treated differently, and cautions that there is no general attorney exemption for attorneys who use covered telemarketing. The guide expressly says it represents FTC staff views and is not binding on the Commission, so the regulation remains the controlling source. Federal Trade Commission

4.3 Conditional credit-repair overlap

Debt settlement does not automatically become credit repair. Separate analysis is required when the provider expressly or impliedly represents that it will improve a consumer’s credit history, credit record, or credit rating.

For covered telemarketing credit-improvement services, 16 C.F.R. §310.4(a)(2) bars requesting or receiving payment until:

• the represented time for providing all promised goods or services has expired; and
• the seller has provided a consumer-reporting-agency report demonstrating that the promised results were achieved, issued more than six months after the results were achieved.

The rule also preserves the FCRA permissible-purpose requirement for obtaining a consumer report. eCFR+1

CROA separately defines a credit repair organization by reference to paid services intended to improve a consumer’s credit record, history, or rating or to provide related advice. Its express exclusions include a qualifying §501(c)(3) nonprofit, an original creditor assisting with its own debt, and specified depository institutions and credit unions. Current House U.S. Code materials stated that the chapter was current through Public Law 119-124, dated October 15, 2026. U.S. Code+1

Where CROA applies, it prohibits collecting payment before the agreed service is fully performed, requires a written and dated contract, delays services until the three-business-day period has elapsed, and gives the consumer a three-business-day cancellation right without penalty. GovInfo+2

The state nonprofit exception and the federal CROA nonprofit exclusion are therefore not interchangeable: South Dakota’s text does not expressly say §501(c)(3), while CROA does.

5. Regulator permission, operational procedure, and public lookup

5.1 Responsible state authority

The operative statute assigns bond filing and approval to the South Dakota Attorney General. The Attorney General’s Consumer Protection resources page currently links both the statute and the debt-adjusting bond materials. South Dakota Consumer Protection

5.2 Publicly documented bond procedure

The currently linked form is a 2015-version instruction packet. It requires, among other things:

1. Use of the AG-provided form unless another form receives prior approval.
2. Retention of the exact prescribed language in an electronic reproduction.
3. An original bond document.
4. Original principal and surety/attorney-in-fact signatures.
5. A power of attorney dated the same day as the bond.
6. No strikeouts or whiteouts.
7. Principal and surety business-address information.
8. Entity-appropriate authority and acknowledgment.
9. Separate notarization of principal and surety.
10. Execution by the surety’s South Dakota registered/resident agent.
11. AG approval on the bond form.
12. A $50,000 penal sum. South Dakota Consumer Protection

The material does not publicly establish in the reviewed text:

• a separate debt-adjuster application;
• an application fee;
• an examination;
• an annual renewal cycle;
• a certificate number;
• a searchable authorization number;
• an online filing portal;
• a public approval roster;
• the consequences or timing of surety cancellation;
• whether amendments are required for changes of name, ownership, address, or control.

Those items remain held.

5.3 Evidence of current administration

A South Dakota AG records schedule dated July 30, 2026 contains series AG-136, “Buying Club Bonds & Debt Adjustment Bonds.” It says the records may contain bonds and correspondence, describes debt-adjustment businesses as filing bonds with the AG and being approved for operation, and requires permanent retention. The schedule prints “SDCL-34-34-3,” which is evidently an agency citation typo; the controlling statute is §37-34-3. South Dakota

The FY2027 AG budget brief lists these performance figures:

• Actual FY2024: 50 debt-adjustment bonds
• Actual FY2025: 49
• Estimated FY2026: 50
• Estimated FY2027: 50

These figures show an ongoing administered program but do not prove that the numbers equal unique active providers, current approvals, or providers authorized on today’s date. My LRC

5.4 No public provider-status lookup established

The AG’s public “Company Search” accepts a website URL and helps identify reported scam websites. It expressly warns that the absence of a website does not mean it is legitimate. It is not a debt-adjuster bond or authorization lookup. South Dakota Consumer Protection

No public debt-adjustment bond roster or provider-by-provider approval lookup was located. Accordingly:

• No named provider’s authorization is established here.
• Marketing statements such as “licensed,” “bonded,” “approved,” or “available in South Dakota” are not proof.
• A surety-bond image without AG approval and current-maintenance evidence is not enough.
• The budget count is not a provider registry.
• The presence of a company in the Secretary of State’s business records would not alone establish the §37-34-3(10) exception.

6. Worked fee and boundary examples

The complete examples are in Section D. The controlling principles are:

• No exception or approved bond means no Chapter 37-34 access pathway was established, regardless of whether the proposed fee is numerically modest.
• A bond establishes only the Chapter 37-34 exception; it does not validate the amount, contract, timing, or federal collection point.
• For covered TSR transactions, earlier fees must have arisen under the same allocation method and after the same required performance conditions.
• No example treats a consumer payment into a dedicated account as an earned provider fee.
• No example assumes that a state-law silence authorizes an advance fee.

7. Component coverage and remaining investigations

This pass resolves the core text, exception architecture, bond process, absence of a Chapter 37-34 fee formula, and conditional federal fee timing. It does not resolve the broader agreement, funds, bond-remedy, enforcement, collection, secured-debt, sector, local, tribal, contract, or comprehensive case-law dimensions. The full coverage table appears after the examples.

B. Source table

All listed materials were freshly accessed or checked on October 25, 2026 Pacific. Historical document dates remain historical and are not represented as access dates.

C. Claim table

D. Worked examples and full scope-coverage table

Example E01 — Covered for-profit provider without an exception or bond

Facts

• South Dakota resident enrolls one $12,000 unsecured credit-card account.
• Provider is a for-profit company.
• Provider will negotiate a principal reduction.
• Consumer will pay the creditor directly.
• Proposed fee: 20% of enrolled debt.
• Provider has no established attorney, bank, nonprofit, employer, loan, mediator, or other exception.
• No AG-approved bond is established.

Classification

The noncustodial arrangement is still a fee-based contract to effect a compromise or adjustment. Assuming sufficient South Dakota nexus, it is covered by §37-34-1.

Arithmetic

$12,000×20%=$2,400$12{,}000 \times 20% = $2{,}400$12,000×20%=$2,400Result

The arithmetic is $2,400, but no lawful Chapter 37-34 operating pathway has been established. The question is not whether $2,400 is below a state cap; there is no verified state cap. The provider is prohibited unless an exception—including the approved-bond route—applies. Remote-provider nexus remains an explicit hold. South Dakota Consumer Protection

Example E02 — Bonded provider and a hypothetical enrolled-debt fee

Facts

• Same $12,000 debt.
• Provider has an actual, maintained, AG-approved $50,000 bond.
• Contract proposes a 20% enrolled-debt fee.
• No federal timing facts are yet satisfied.

Arithmetic

$12,000×20%=$2,400$12{,}000 \times 20% = $2{,}400$12,000×20%=$2,400State result

The bond supplies the §37-34-3(10) exception, subject to its validity and maintenance. It does not make $2,400 affirmatively reasonable, enforceable, earned, or currently collectible. Chapter 37-34 contains no percentage cap or advance-fee authorization. South Dakota Consumer Protection+1

Federal branch

If the TSR applies, the provider may not request or receive the $2,400 before the settlement-agreement and first-payment conditions are satisfied. eCFR

Example E03 — Proportional method, partial settlement, previous lawful fee, and cancellation

Inputs

• Debt A enrollment balance: $4,000
• Debt B enrollment balance: $6,000
• Debt C enrollment balance: $10,000
• Total enrollment balance: $20,000
• Total contracted fee: 20% of total enrolled debt
• Contracted total fee: $20,000×20%=$4,000$20{,}000 \times 20% = $4{,}000$20,000×20%=$4,000
• Method selected: proportional enrolled-balance method for all debts
• Debt A has been altered under a valid customer-executed agreement
• Customer has made the first payment under that agreement

Debt A earned-fee calculation

$4,000×$4,000$20,000=$800$4{,}000 \times \frac{$4{,}000}{$20{,}000}

$800$4,000×$20,000$4,000​=$800Previous-fee condition

Assume the provider previously received $300 of the $800 after all Debt A triggers were met under this same proportional method.

$800−$300=$500$800 - $300 = $500$800−$300=$500Current result

• Maximum fee attributable to Debt A under the stated contract/formula: $800
• Already lawfully received for Debt A: $300
• Remaining amount attributable to Debt A: $500
• Fee earned for unresolved Debts B and C: $0

No method switch is allowed merely because another method would produce a larger amount. eCFR+1

Cancellation branch

Assume the dedicated account currently contains:

• $1,700 of unearned consumer funds; and
• $500 corresponding to the remaining Debt A fee that has already been earned under the federal conditions but not yet transferred.

Assume no separate administrator fee or other authorized charge.

• The $1,700 is unearned and must be returned within seven business days.
• The federal dedicated-account provision permits excluding properly earned provider fees from the amount returned.
• Whether the provider may immediately debit the $500 depends on the contract and valid account authorization, which this South Dakota fee pass did not determine.
• Nothing is earned for B or C merely because the consumer previously made deposits or because A was resolved. eCFR

All amounts are exact to the cent; no rounding adjustment is needed.

Example E04 — Consistent percentage-of-savings method

Inputs

• Debt B enrollment balance: $6,000
• Amount actually paid to satisfy Debt B: $4,500
• Contracted savings fee: 25%
• Same 25% savings rate applies to every enrolled debt
• Agreement and first-payment triggers are satisfied

Savings

$6,000−$4,500=$1,500$6{,}000 - $4{,}500 = $1{,}500$6,000−$4,500=$1,500Fee

$1,500×25%=$375$1{,}500 \times 25% = $375$1,500×25%=$375Assume $100 was already lawfully received after the trigger:

$375−$100=$275$375 - $100 = $275$375−$100=$275Result

• Total fee for Debt B under the savings method: $375
• Previously received: $100
• Remaining fee: $275

The provider may not calculate “savings” against later inflated balances containing post-enrollment interest or fees; the regulation uses enrollment balance minus the amount actually paid to satisfy the debt. The provider also may not use 25% for Debt B and a different savings percentage for another debt. eCFR+1

Example E05 — Lower-debt case and an upfront “setup” fee

Inputs

• One enrolled debt: $800
• Contracted fee: 20% of enrolled balance
• Proposed separate setup fee: $50 requested at enrollment
• No settlement/DMP alteration or first creditor payment yet
• TSR assumed applicable

Main fee

$800×20%=$160$800 \times 20% = $160$800×20%=$160Result

• The $160 is not earned before the federal triggers.
• Requesting the $50 setup fee before those triggers is also prohibited if it is consideration for the covered debt-relief service; the label “setup” does not change its substance.
• South Dakota Chapter 37-34 neither supplies a special small-debt exception nor authorizes advance setup fees.
• If the TSR does not apply, this pass still found no South Dakota chapter-specific advance-fee authorization; other contract and consumer-protection law remains open. eCFR+1

Example E06 — Custodial DMP and proposed monthly fee

Inputs

• Three debts of $3,000 each
• Total enrolled debt: $9,000
• Consumer deposits $300 per month with the DMP provider
• Provider distributes the funds to creditors
• Proposed provider fee: $35 per month
• Provider is for-profit and has an actual AG-approved bond

State classification

The custodial plan is squarely within §37-34-1. The bond can satisfy the state access exception. Chapter 37-34 does not tell us whether $35 is reasonable or cap it at a different amount. South Dakota Consumer Protection

Federal timing branch

If the TSR applies:

• The provider may not collect the $35 merely because the first $300 was placed with it.
• A valid DMP or comparable agreement must actually alter at least one creditor relationship.
• The consumer must make at least one payment under that altered agreement.
• If all three creditor debts are altered together, the trigger analysis differs from a one-at-a-time settlement program; the exact recurring-fee allocation remains contract- and transaction-specific.
• If only one debt is altered, the fee cannot be front-loaded against unresolved debts. eCFR+1

Example E07 — Loan/disbursement exception and an adjustment fee

Inputs

• At the debtor’s request, a company arranges a $10,000 consolidation loan.
• With debtor authorization, it disburses the proceeds among creditors.
• It separately charges $100 described as a “debt restructuring service fee.”

Result

The $100 charge prevents reliance on §37-34-3(8) if it is compensation for the debt-adjusting work, because that exception expressly requires no compensation for the adjusting services.

A separate bona fide loan-origination charge may raise different lending-law questions, but relabeling adjustment compensation as origination, processing, consulting, or document preparation does not establish the exception. Those lending and characterization questions remain outside this pass. South Dakota Consumer Protection

Zero-adjustment-fee branch

If the company charges $0 for adjusting, and all debtor-request, loan, authorization, and disbursement conditions are genuinely met, the model textually fits §37-34-3(8), subject to other lending laws not investigated here.

Example E08 — Nonprofit, attorney, and self-creditor boundaries

Nonprofit branch

A genuine nonprofit corporation provides a DMP and proposes a $25 monthly fee.

• It may qualify for §37-34-3(5) based on its actual entity status.
• The state exception is not a finding that $25 is approved, reasonable, earned in advance, or federally permissible.
• A for-profit contractor cannot automatically borrow the nonprofit’s exception.
• State nonprofit status does not automatically satisfy CROA’s express §501(c)(3) exclusion. South Dakota Consumer Protection+1

Attorney branch

A nonlawyer debt-settlement company sells the program, contracts with consumers, and collects the fees, while an affiliated attorney is available for review.

• Those facts do not establish that the adjusting is incidental to the lawful practice of law in South Dakota.
• The contracting party, control, actual legal services, attorney-client relationship, fee ownership, and lawful-practice facts would need investigation.
• The federal TSR has no generic attorney exemption according to the FTC staff guide. South Dakota Consumer Protection+1

Original-creditor branch

A credit-card issuer voluntarily reduces the balance of its own customer’s account and does not charge a separate debt-adjusting fee.

• Section 37-34-3 contains no express self-creditor exception.
• Nevertheless, that bilateral restructuring may fall outside the debt-adjuster definition because the creditor is not being hired to manage multiple debts or provide a separate adjustment service for a fee.
• The precise state boundary remains held.
• If credit-repair representations are involved, CROA has a separate original-creditor exclusion limited to assistance restructuring the debt owed to that creditor. South Dakota Consumer Protection+1

Full scope-coverage and gap table

E. Researcher self-check

Actually read or directly checked

• The complete two-page Attorney General reproduction of SDCL §§37-34-1 through 37-34-3, including all ten exceptions.
• The current official LRC code index and current section locators; the index was labeled effective September 2, 2026.
• The full five-page Attorney General debt-adjustment bond instruction/form packet.
• The current AG Consumer Protection resources page linking the statute and bond.
• The July 2026 AG records-retention schedule’s debt-adjustment-bond entry.
• The FY2027 Attorney General budget brief’s debt-adjustment-bond performance row.
• The AG “Company Search” page and its explicit limitations.
• The relevant printed pages of the 2019–2020 AG Consumer Handbook.
• The Chapter 54-13 mediator locator and agricultural-credit-mediation definition.
• Current eCFR §§310.2, 310.4, and 310.6, including the displayed currency date.
• The FTC’s debt-relief TSR staff guide and its nonbinding-status statement.
• Current House U.S. Code CROA currency material and §1679a.
• The official GovInfo annual-edition CROA provisions for advance payment, contract formation, and cancellation.
• PDF pages containing the operative statute, bond form, AG records entry, budget indicator, handbook material, and CROA text were also visually checked rather than relying only on parsed PDF text.

Searched but not established

• No responsive debt-adjusting-specific ARSD chapter, fee schedule, fee-adjustment bulletin, or adoption order was located.
• No public debt-adjuster approval roster or bond-status lookup was located.
• No on-point published South Dakota appellate decision or official AG opinion interpreting the material boundaries was located in the targeted official-domain searches.
• No current or future-effective 2026 amendment to Chapter 37-34 was identified in the targeted official session/statute searches.
• No named provider’s approval was investigated or established.

These are bounded search results, not claims that inaccessible, unindexed, nonpublic, trial-level, or paid-database materials do not exist.

Not read or not completed

• Full original session-law texts for 1990, 1991, 1993, and the complete 2005 transfer act.
• Every South Dakota trial-court docket or unpublished decision.
• Nonpublic AG bond files or correspondence.
• Surety cancellation, renewal, claims, exhaustion, and replacement law.
• General corporate qualification and foreign-entity requirements.
• Full state contract, disclosure, trust, custody, money-transmission, UDAP, restitution, or private-remedy law.
• Collection, litigation, limitation, secured-debt, sector-specific, local, or tribal dimensions.
• Provider-specific application or authorization evidence.

Access and method limitations preserved

• The LRC interactive statute and administrative-rule pages displayed JavaScript/browser warnings. Current indexed text and the AG’s official statute PDF were used to recover the operative language.
• The separate South Dakota rulemaking portal timed out on direct access.
• A historical AG debt-relief press-release route that did not load was not used as authority.
• Search snippets were used only for discovery/current-page confirmation; consequential statutory assertions were taken from actual official text.
• The 2015 date on the bond packet was preserved; its continued live link in 2026 was not converted into a claim that every instruction had been formally reissued in 2026.
• The 2019–2020 handbook was treated as nonbinding historical consumer guidance.
• The AG records schedule’s apparent “34-34-3” typo was not treated as controlling law.
• The budget’s bond figures were not converted into a count of unique active providers.
• No Chrome control, Work mode, browser permissions, other chats, contacts, filings, purchases, CAPTCHA workarounds, account changes, private borrower information, or site publication occurred.
• No local-file write or publication-readiness claim is made.
• This self-check is not an independent review.

Final component conclusion: South Dakota has a broad debt-adjusting definition and a default criminal prohibition, but it offers an unusually direct residual pathway through an Attorney General-approved and maintained $50,000 bond. The chapter does not establish a consumer-fee schedule or state earned-fee timing rule. Consequently, market access must be proven through the actual exception/bond facts, while fee amount, timing, refunds, and federal overlays must be analyzed separately. A company’s marketing label, attorney connection, nonprofit claim, surety advertisement, or appearance in a general company database is not enough.

END S_SD PASS-01.