Photo of Carlin McCrory

A seasoned regulatory and compliance attorney, Carlin brings extensive experience representing financial institutions, fintechs, lenders, payment processors, neobanks, virtual currency companies, and mortgage servicers.

The Department of Labor (DOL) has recently issued a revised Unemployment Insurance Program Letter to clarify how state workforce agencies should deliver unemployment benefits payments to consumers. This new guidance integrates recent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) research on so-called “junk fees” and other consumer risks associated with public benefits and prepaid cards.

In this episode of Payments Pros, Carlin McCrory is joined by Nathan Ottinger, president of Georgia Banking Company’s Payments and Technology Banking Group. They delve into the current state of the payments marketplace, characterized by heightened regulatory scrutiny and rapid innovation. Nathan underscores the importance of well-documented risk management strategies for financial institutions and the necessity for businesses to secure proficient legal counsel, particularly in the realm of money transmission.

As discussed here, in March 2023, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) proposed new regulations under the California Financing Law that would interpret the definition of “loan” to include “income-based advances” or earned wage access (EWA) products, except those offered by employers. The proposal also sought to require providers of such products to register with the state, and imposed requirements on debt settlement companies and education financing providers.

On April 19, Kansas Governor Laura Kelly signed House Bill (HB) 2560 to regulate earned wage access (EWA) products and services. HB 2560 enacts the Earned Wage Access Services Act that requires EWA providers to be licensed by the state bank commissioner and comply with certain disclosure rules. Kansas follows Nevada, Missouri, and Wisconsin in enacting EWA legislation.

In this episode of Payments Pros, Carlin and Keith welcome back Jordan Bennett, Nacha’s senior director of network risk management, for a two-part series on the newly approved rules designed to combat credit push fraud. Credit push fraud has been on the rise, and Nacha released a risk management framework to increase awareness and mitigate such frauds.

Yesterday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued a procedural rule streamlining the designation proceedings for nonbank supervision based on a particular entity posing “risks to consumers.” As discussed in “Our Take” below, the changes are designed to encourage nonbanks to volunteer to be supervised, while making it easier for the CFPB to impose supervisory oversight when companies do not consent.

In this episode of Payments Pros, Carlin McCrory is joined by Nick St. John, director of regulatory compliance at America’s Credit Unions, to discuss the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) and related developments from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). Enacted in 2021, the CTA aims to combat the use of anonymous legal entities for money laundering. It mandates that legal entities report their beneficial ownership information to FinCEN, which maintains a database accessible to law enforcement, financial institutions, and other entities that meet specific criteria.

On March 22, a group of 39 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia (participating states) entered an interim consent order against Sigue Corporation, a licensed money transmitter corporation, ordering it to cease operations due to deteriorating financial conditions. Sigue reported approximately $4.9 million in outstanding liabilities related to regulated money transmission transactions originating in the participating states and New York. The corporation is currently in the process of surrendering its money transmission licenses and winding-down.

Can remittance transfer providers be held liable under the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) when marketing about the speed and cost of their services? According to a March 27 Circular issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau), the answer to that question is yes, if the marketing is deceptive. Specifically, according to the CFPB, providers may be liable under the CFPA for deceptive marketing practices if they market: remittance transfers as being delivered within a certain time frame when transfers actually take longer; remittance transfers as “no fee” when in fact the provider charges fees; promotional fees or promotional exchange rates for remittance transfers without sufficiently clarifying when an offer is temporary; and remittance transfers as “free” if they are not in fact free.