FinTech

Subscribe to FinTech via RSS

Litigation involving Colorado’s opt-out from the interest exportation provisions of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (DIDMCA) has taken an adverse turn for the financial services industry. On November 10, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a ruling reversing a preliminary injunction imposed by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado in June 2024 that prevented enforcement of Colorado’s usury restrictions against parties to the litigation, including any members of various industry association parties—the National Association of Industrial Bankers, American Financial Services Association and American Fintech Council—with respect to loans in which the lender was not located, for interest exportation purposes, in Colorado. Subject to further proceedings, the Tenth Circuit’s ruling re-opens the door for loans originated by state-chartered banks and similar financial institutions to be subject to Colorado usury restrictions when either: (i) the borrower is located in the state; or (ii) subject to certain exceptions, the lender is located in the state, regardless of the location of the borrower. The ruling will become effective, if at all, only after issuance of the Tenth Circuit mandate, which may be stayed pending further appellate proceedings as discussed below.

As addressed in our prior discussion of the Colorado DIDMCA opt-out and related litigation, DIDMCA provides the basis, under federal banking law, for state-chartered, FDIC-insured banks and certain similar financial institutions to “export” the interest-related requirements of their home or, in certain cases, branch office (host) states when lending elsewhere. Both national banks and state-chartered banks have such authority, but DIDMCA conditions state-chartered banks’ authority on the ability of individual states to opt out of the interest exportation regime under 12 U.S.C. § 1831d. Iowa and Puerto Rico have had longstanding opt-outs; certain other states initially opted out but later repealed such opt-outs; and Colorado enacted an opt-out that would have become effective July 1, 2024 but for litigation by industry participants that resulted in the June 2024 preliminary injunction. Continue Reading DIDMCA Opt-Out Update — Tenth Circuit Reverses Colorado Preliminary Injunction

Around Christmas 2024, the Ohio Division of Financial Institutions (“DFI”) left a lump of coal in marketplace consumer lenders’ proverbial stockings by issuing guidance that asserted a license under the Ohio Small Loan Act (“SLA”) was required to arrange consumer loans of $5,000 or less in exchange for compensation—even if those loans were issued by federally insured banks pursuant to their authority under federal banking law. Expanded guidance and FAQs issued in January 2025 further supported DFI’s position that a license would be required for many parties engaged in arranging or brokering Ohio loans. Combined, the issuances left some market participants—particularly those operating under bank partnership models—scrambling to determine whether their programs were subject to the SLA under the DFI’s new position, whether to apply for a license, and whether obtaining a license would then impose material substantive limitations on affected lending programs.

In a positive development for consumer lending platforms (among other industry participants), the DFI appears to have withdrawn the 2024 guidance, albeit subject to the regulator’s ongoing consideration of underlying issues.

As of October 31, 2025, the DFI has updated its guidance on the application of the SLA to bank partnerships, reversing course from its earlier interpretation of the statute. The updated guidance states that the DFI will not require any non-bank entity that is compensated for arranging bank loans in any amount to obtain a license under the SLA or to otherwise engage in such activity.  Critically, the guidance also provides that the DFI does not intend to pursue enforcement action against any entity for engaging in such activity in calendar year 2025 without a valid license (whether or not such entity pursued a license application following the December 2024 and January 2025 guidance issuances).Continue Reading Ohio Walks Back Prior Small Loan Act Guidance, Eases Licensing Position for Bank Partnerships

On June 24, 2025, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) published a Request for Information (“RFI”) to better understand how increasing consumer use of Buy Now Pay Later (“BNPL”) products impacts housing affordability and stability in connection with the residential loan programs insured by the Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”). BNPL products, which allow consumers to purchase goods and services and repay over time (typically, though not always, through four or fewer deferred installments payable over six to eight weeks with no periodic interest or other finance charges), have continued to gain popularity over the past decade. To date, however, HUD has not incorporated consideration of BNPL products into underwriting guidelines for FHA-insured mortgage loans. With the RFI, HUD is seeking more information on whether it should develop policies to address potential ability-to-repay risks from these relatively new products.

Background on BNPL

While retail financing has a long history in the U.S., the concept of BNPL as a distinct class of product largely stems from the introduction of a “pay-in-4” product into the U.S. around 2018. This core element of the BNPL market involves the origination of unsecured, interest-free short-term installment loans to pay for relatively small-dollar retail purchases. Payments are usually due in four or fewer equal installments, with the first payment often due as a down payment at the time of sale. Subsequent payments are typically due every two weeks. Consumers enter into BNPL loans frequently through apps or purchase-and-origination flows managed by fintech BNPL providers. BNPL lenders may approve or deny a loan based on their own individual underwriting criteria, which may include reliance on a consumer report (often pulled as a soft pull to prequalify a consumer for a potential range of terms) and/or the consumer’s repayment history with the BNPL lender. BNPL lenders generally do not report repayment history or default to the consumer reporting agencies, although: (i) some lenders offer consumers the option to report positive repayment histories, and (ii) credit bureaus are planning to incorporate BNPL payments into credit scores and craft new categories to better match typical BNPL structures (as compared to reporting formats currently relevant for installment loans with monthly payments or traditional credit cards), each of which may increase adoption of BNPL credit reporting over time.Continue Reading HUD Requests Information on Buy Now Pay Later

Mayer Brown has published a new edition of Licensing Link, a periodic publication that will keep you informed on hot topics and new developments in state licensing laws, and provide practice tips and primers on important issues related to state licensing across the spectrum of asset classes and financial services activities.

In this issue, we…

Mayer Brown serves as a trusted advisor to our clients in the consumer financial services industry, a role that we cherish and constantly strive to improve.

In this report, we provide a snapshot of our 2024 consumer financial services representative engagements and how we helped industry participants navigate the terrain. It also provides links to…

On October 22, 2024, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) marked a significant milestone in the shift towards open banking in the United States with the finalization of its rulemaking on Personal Financial Data Rights. As we discussed in our Legal Update on the October 2023 proposed rule, the final rule provides the long-awaited implementation of Section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Act, enacted in 2010, and establishes a comprehensive regulatory framework to provide consumers—and their authorized third parties—with rights to receive structured, consistent and timely access to consumers’ personal financial data held by financial institutions and other financial services providers.

The 594-page final rule is intended to allow consumers to access and share data held by banks, credit unions, credit card issuers, digital wallets, payment apps and other financial service providers, with the goal of improving customer choice and increasing competition, while strengthening consumer protections by imposing limitations on authorized third parties’ collection, use and retention of consumers’ data. Financial institutions subject to the final rule could face a variety of compliance, operational and technical challenges as they build out the infrastructure necessary to comply with the final rule. For the largest financial institutions, which include depository institutions with total assets in excess of $250 billion and non-depository institutions that generated at least $10 billion in total receipts in either calendar year 2023 or calendar year 2024, compliance is required by April 1, 2026, with compliance by smaller covered institutions required in phases beginning April 1, 2027, through April 1, 2030.Continue Reading CFPB Issues Long-Awaited Open Banking Rule; Lawsuit Immediately Filed

On July 18, 2024, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB” or the “Bureau”) issued a proposed interpretive rule (the “Proposed Rule”) purporting to clarify the application of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and Regulation Z to earned wage access (“EWA”) programs.  Unlike other interpretive rules issued by the Bureau, including the interpretive rule on the application of certain TILA and Regulation Z “credit card” provisions to buy now, pay later products, the Proposed Rule is styled as a proposal and request for comment that will not become effective until after the CFPB considers comments and issues a final interpretive rule.  In this blog post, we discuss the important features of the Proposed Rule.Continue Reading A New Play in EWA?  CFPB Issues Proposed Interpretive Rule On Earned Wage Access

On June 18, state-chartered banks and their fintech partners received welcome news in ongoing litigation challenging the scope of Colorado’s opt-out from the interest exportation regime established by the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (DIDMCA). The US District Court for the District of Colorado issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting state officials from enforcing state-specific interest limitations against any member of the plaintiff associations—the National Association of Industrial Bankers, American Financial Services Association and American Fintech Council—with respect to any loan not “made” in Colorado, where “made” means that the lender is located and conducts certain key loan-making functions.Continue Reading DIDMCA Opt-Out Update—District Court Constrains Colorado Opt-Out

On March 29, 2024, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the new Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”) regulations against the plaintiffs in the case.

The CRA, passed in 1977, generally requires insured depository institutions to participate in investment, lending, and service activities that help…

Mayer Brown has published a new edition of Licensing Link, a periodic publication that will keep you informed on hot topics and new developments in state licensing laws, and provide practice tips and primers on important issues related to state licensing across the spectrum of asset classes and financial services activities.

In this issue, we…