On April 28, Governor Wes Moore (D) signed Senate Bill 94 into law, significantly revising Maryland’s earned wage access (EWA) framework and tightening restrictions on tipping practices in both EWA programs and certain consumer loans. The new law amends multiple provisions of the Commercial Law Article and adds new sections governing advertising, anti‑discrimination, and regulatory safe harbors.
In this installment of The Consumer Finance Podcast’s point‑of‑sale finance series, Chris Willis is joined by colleagues Jason Cover and Taylor Gess to break down how electronic contracting really works in modern point‑of‑sale credit programs. They explain the interplay between state Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) laws and the federal E‑SIGN Act, including when you need formal E‑SIGN consent, how E-SIGN preemption of state UETA adoptions operates, and the general rule of validity. The conversation walks through practical design issues for online and mobile flows, clear and conspicuous disclosures, and “click‑to‑agree” mechanics, as well as pitfalls like relying on E‑SIGN where a statute still requires a specific delivery method. The episode closes with a forward‑looking discussion about agentic artificial intelligence, how existing “electronic agent” concepts in UETA and E‑SIGN may apply, and what point‑of‑sale creditors should be watching as technology and contracting practices evolve.
On May 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its long‑awaited decision on remand in Cantero, again holding that New York’s 2% interest‑on‑escrow statute (General Obligations Law § 5‑601) is preempted as applied to national banks. This follows the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous 2024 opinion (discussed here), which vacated the Second Circuit’s earlier decision and instructed the court to apply the Barnett Bank “prevents or significantly interferes” standard through a “nuanced comparative analysis” of prior preemption precedents.
The Tenth Circuit has granted rehearing en banc in National Association of Industrial Bankers v. Weiser, vacating its November 10, 2025, panel decision that had allowed Colorado to apply its Uniform Consumer Credit Code (UCCC) interest-rate caps to loans made by out-of-state, state-chartered banks to Colorado borrowers. The court’s prior judgment is vacated, issuance of the mandate is stayed, and the case is reopened for en banc consideration. As a result, the panel opinion narrowing DIDMCA preemption no longer reflects the current state of the law in the Tenth Circuit, and the scope of Colorado’s opt-out authority is once again unsettled.
On March 11, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a new Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to revisit its Rule Concerning the Use of Prenotification Negative Option Plans. The move follows the Eighth Circuit’s 2025 decision vacating the FTC’s 2024 amendments (discussed here), which would have imposed uniform requirements on subscriptions, auto‑renewals, and trial‑to‑pay offers across all marketing channels. The ANPRM makes clear that while the FTC acknowledges that so-called negative options are widely offered and can provide benefits to both sellers and consumers, the FTC intends to address recurring billing and cancellation frictions that continue to generate a high volume of consumer complaints.
In continuation of increased state efforts to regulate state-chartered banks and fintech partnerships,Oregon’s newly enrolled House Bill (HB) 4116 would enact an express “opt‑out” from a key provision of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (DIDMCA) for consumer finance loans made in Oregon. HB 4116 also updates licensing requirements and clarifies when Oregon law applies to remote and online loans. This Oregon development comes on the heels of the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Weiser upholding Colorado’s DIDMCA opt-out and holding that a loan is “made in such State” if either the borrower or lender is located in the opt-out state as discussed here. A petition for rehearing en banc has been filed in Weiser, and it remains unsettled where a loan is “made” for purposes of DIDMCA.
On February 23, the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) issued a proposed new Part 423 to Title 3 of the NYCRR to implement New York Banking Law Article 14‑B for Buy-Now-Pay-Later (BNPL) lenders. The proposal would move BNPL firmly into New York’s credit system, imposing licensing, supervision, disclosure, data privacy, and underwriting requirements on both interest‑free and interest‑bearing BNPL products offered to New York consumers. If adopted, the rule would take effect 180 days after the notice of adoption is published in the State Register, with a short transitional period for existing BNPL providers. DFS is accepting pre-proposal comments through March 5, 2026, after which the proposed rule will be published in the New York state register for a formal 60-day comment period.
In this crossover episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast and Payments Pros, Taylor Gess, Jason Cover, and Caleb Rosenberg explore the heightened attention from regulators and legislators on small business finance programs and trade credit. They discuss the growth of fintech-driven and embedded business-to-business financing, the shift from simple trade credit to more complex installment and term products, and how these offerings increasingly trigger disclosure, registration, rate cap, and fair lending requirements — sometimes even pulling in federal rules like Reg E and Reg B when consumer accounts are involved. This episode also emphasizes the expanding structure of state commercial financing laws in California, Texas, and other states, with a focus on new disclosure regimes, and novel consumer-type protections.
In the second installment of the two-part Payments Year in Review series, hosts Keith Barnett, Carlin McCrory, and Jason Cover focus on the state-level developments that shaped the 2025 payments landscape and will influence 2026.
In the first installment of a two-part Payments Year in Review series, hosts Keith Barnett, Carlin McCrory, and Jason Cover highlight the key federal developments that shaped the payments industry in 2025 and preview what’s ahead for 2026.