Photo of Keith J. Barnett

Keith J. Barnett

Subscribe to Keith J. Barnett's Posts

Keith’s experience representing clients in the financial services industry as a litigation, compliance, regulatory, investigations (internal and regulatory), and enforcement attorney spans 20 years. Keith represents clients against government regulators (CFPB, FTC, SEC, CFTC), industry regulators (FINRA), and private litigants in federal courts, state courts, and before arbitration and administrative law panels in the financial services industry.

Follow:Read more about Keith J. BarnettKeith's Linkedin Profile

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.

On October 13, California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) signed Assembly Bill 39 (Digital Financial Assets Law). This new law broadly empowers the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) to govern “digital financial asset business activity” and prohibits entities from engaging in such activity with California residents without obtaining a license from the DFPI, among other criteria.

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.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has granted the petition for certiorari in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), a case where Corner Post challenges a 2011 Board rule that governs certain fees for debit-card transactions. Specifically, the question presented is whether a plaintiff’s Administrative Procedures Act (APA) claim, for statute of limitations purposes, first accrues when an agency issues a rule or when the rule first causes a plaintiff to be “adversely affected or aggrieved.” The Supreme Court’s decision will resolve an ongoing circuit split on the issue.

On September 7, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released an issue spotlight focusing on the role that mobile device operating systems play in determining consumer’s payment options. According to the CFPB, “[g]iven the continued shift toward the use of contactless payments on mobile devices like smartphones and wearables, there is now readily available technology for consumers to securely make [point-of-sale (POS)] payments through different apps and services … Any restrictions imposed by the dominant operating systems … will have an outsized effect on access to payments systems and may hinder the development of a truly open ecosystem.”