The Financial Services Community and Tech Industry Waits to See if 2024 Brings CFPB Scrutiny to $1.7 Trillion Worth of Digital Payments
ABSTRACT: The public comment period has closed on a proposed rule from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that would treat Big Tech firms and other nonbank payment operators more like banks regarding the CFPB’s supervisory authority.
On January 8, 2024 the public comment period for a proposed rule published by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on November 7, 2023 closed. The proposed rule seeks to extend CFPB supervisory jurisdiction to “larger participants” of the Fintech industry; specifically, the CFPB proposes greater regulatory authority of the big players in the digital wallet and peer-to-peer money transfer space. It is estimated that the proposed rule would result in oversight of nearly 13 billion transactions covering more than $1.7 trillion in transfer.
The Dodd-Frank Act grants the CFPB supervisory authority over “larger participant[s] or a market for other consumer financial products or services.” The CFPB currently asserts supervisory authority over five markets: consumer reporting, international money transfers, automobile financing, consumer debt collection, and student loan servicing. The proposed rule would extend the CFPB’s supervisory to a sixth market, the market for “general-use consumer payment applications” i.e. payment apps and digital wallets. The CFPB’s supervisory authority casts a wide net, and would allow the CFPB to examine the entire entity, not just the payment application portion of a company, for compliance with federal laws. A company like Meta could have its entire operations scrutinized by the CFPB if “Meta Pay” fell within the definition of a “larger participant” in the app payment industry.
The proposed rule would use a two-part test to evaluate whether a company would qualify as a “larger participant” in the app payment market. The first part of the test is a volume threshold, whether the company does more than five million transactions annually. The second part of the test would exclude small entities, as defined by the Small Business Administration. The CFPB did consider a ten million transaction volume threshold, but determined that the lower volume was better suited to protect consumer interests.
The rule would apply to two types of payment functions: funds transfers and a wallet functionality. The rule relies on currently defined terms, but would cover either receiving funds for the purpose of transmitting them or accepting and transmitting payment instructions through an app under the funds transfers function. The wallet functionality provision would apply to any app that both (1) stores account or payment credentials, including in encrypted or tokenized form, and (2) transmits, routs, or otherwise processes such stored account or payment credentials to facilitate a consumer payment.
The CFPB estimates that the proposed rule would cover 88% of known transactions in the nonbank market for general-use payment apps. The proposed rule would go into effect thirty days after it becomes a final rule, with the CFPB notifying impacted entities of their stats as a larger participant. The proposed rule would allow a company disputing its status as a “larger participant” forty-five days to provide evidence that they do not qualify under the two-part test discussed above.
The proposed rule would not apply to banks or other depository institutions. However, the proposed rule might apply to vendors retained by depository institutions to manage and/or operate their apps.
Baker Sterchi attorneys will continue to monitor the CFPB’s proposed rule. Contact our Financial Services Practice Group for more information.About Financial Services Law Blog
Baker Sterchi's Financial Services Law Blog explores current events, litigation trends, regulations, and hot topics in the financial services industry. This blog informs readers of issues affecting a wide range of financial services, including mortgage lending, auto finance, and credit card/retail transactions. Learn more about the editor, Megan Stumph-Turner, and our Financial Services practice.
Subscribe via email
Subscribe to rss feeds
RSS FeedsABOUT baker sterchi blogs
Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC (Baker Sterchi) publishes this website as a service to our clients, colleagues and others, for informational purposes only. These materials are not intended to create an attorney-client relationship, and are not a substitute for sound legal advice. You should not base any action or lack of action on any information included in our website, without first seeking appropriate legal or other professional advice. If you contact us through our website or via email, no attorney-client relationship is created, and no confidential information should be transmitted. Communication with Baker Sterchi by e-mail or other transmissions over the Internet may not be secure, and you should not send confidential electronic messages that are not adequately encrypted.
The hiring of an attorney is an important decision, which should not be based solely on information appearing on our website. To the extent our website has provided links to other Internet resources, those links are not under our control, and we are not responsible for their content. We do our best to provide you current, accurate information; however, we cannot guarantee that this information is the most current, correct or complete. In addition, you should not take this information as a promise or indication of future results.
Disclaimer
The Financial Services Law Blog is made available by Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. Your use of this blog site alone creates no attorney client relationship between you and the firm.
Confidential information
Do not include confidential information in comments or other feedback or messages related to the Financial Services Law Blog, as these are neither confidential nor secure methods of communicating with attorneys. The Financial Services Law Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.