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.

On December 19th, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued a report highlighting consumers’ experiences with overdraft and nonsufficient funds (NSF) fees. The report found that roughly a quarter of consumers are still being charged these fees despite the CFPB’s hostility towards so called “junk fees,” which has led many banks and credit unions to eliminate such fees. The report further found that many consumers who were charged overdraft and NSF fees had access to an alternative asserted to be cheaper by the CFPB, such as available credit on a credit card.

In this special joint episode of Payments Pros and The Consumer Finance Podcast, Carlin McCrory, Keith Barnett, James Kim, and Chris Willis discuss the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) proposed larger participant rule for consumer payments providers.

In March 2023, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) proposed new regulations under the California Financing Law that would update the definition of loan to include what it dubs as “income-based advances” also known as earned wage access (EWA) products, except for those offered by employers. After considering written comments to the proposed regulations, on November 6, the DFPI issued modifications to the proposed regulations and announced comments on the modifications would be accepted until November 27. Under the modifications, direct-to-consumer (i.e., non-employer offered) EWA products would still be defined as loans.

On November 20, 2023, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) issued an invitation for comments on proposed application-related rulemaking under the Digital Financial Assets Law (DFAL). This move comes after Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 39 and Senate Bill 401, which together create the DFAL. The DFAL and Senate Bill 401, signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom on October 13, 2023, are set to regulate virtual currency activities within California, effective July 1, 2025.

On November 7, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a proposed rule with request for public comment to amend existing regulations defining “larger participants” the CFPB supervises by adding a new section to define larger participants that offer digital wallets, payment applications, and similar services.

As discussed here, on August 1, the two major national credit union trade associations — the National Association of Federal Credit Unions (NAFCU) and the Credit Union National Association (CUNA) — announced plans to merge and create a new organization called America’s Credit Unions. Today, CUNA announced that the organizations’ members voted overwhelmingly (94% of CUNA members and 86% of NAFCU members) in favor of the merger. America’s Credit Unions will be legally formed on January 1, 2024.

On October 17, the Clearing House Association, LLC (Association) and National Automated Clearing House Association (Nacha) joined forces to submit an amicus brief in support of a credit union held liable by a district court for a fraud perpetrated by an outside party on the sender of a wire. According to the amici, the district court wrongly held the credit union which banked the beneficiary of the wire responsible for the sender’s losses, even though it had no relationship with the sender. The case, Studco Building Systems US, LLC v. 1st Advantage Federal Credit Union, on appeal before the Fourth Circuit, challenges the district court ruling. The case deals with the liability scheme found in Article 4A of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). According to the amici, under the UCC the disappointed originator (the plaintiff) has recourse against the person paid (its own bank), but not against the bank that paid the beneficiary of the wire, with whom the sender has no relationship. The amici argue that “[t]he district court’s opinion muddles these rules, uncaps banks’ liability, and threatens the efficiency of all U.S. funds-transfer systems — not just the ACH networks — to the detriment of every economic participant, down to the consumer.”