Skip to main content
Menu Icon Menu Icon
Close

InfoBytes Blog

Financial Services Law Insights and Observations
Section Content

Upcoming Events

Filter

Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter for news affecting the financial services industry.

  • Noncash Payment Growth Highlighted in Sixth Federal Reserve Payments Study

    FinTech

    On June 30, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve issued its sixth payments study entitled The Federal Reserve Payments Study 2016: Recent Developments in Consumer and Business Payment Choices. The study includes data on business and consumer noncash payments made in the United States in 2015. Among other things, the study details the differences between business and consumer payments in 2015 compared to those from 2000, general-purpose payment card use in 2015, and increases in use of alternative payment methods.

    According to the report, the most popular noncash payment types among consumers were, in descending order: non-prepaid debit cards, general-purpose credit cards, checks, and finally, ACH debit transfers. For businesses, however, ACH credit transfers were the most popular, then checks, general-purpose credit cards, and non-prepaid debit cards. Consumers wrote fewer than half the number of checks in 2015 than they did in 2000 but almost doubled the number of noncash payments that they made. Businesses also cut check-writing by more than half but differed from consumers by more than doubling the number of ACH transfers that they initiated during the same period.

    General-purpose or “network-branded” cards accounted for more than 65 percent of noncash payments in 2015. The data showed that 60 percent of these card accounts carried revolving debt, while 40 percent of accounts were paid in full each month.

    Information on fraudulent payments also was collected and should be available in the third quarter of this year.

    Fintech Digital Commerce Federal Issues Federal Reserve Electronic Fund Transfer ACH Payments Credit Cards

    Share page with AddThis
  • Illinois Finalizes Digital Currency Regulatory Guidance

    FinTech

    On June 13, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR) issued final guidance on the regulatory treatment of digital currencies with an emphasis on decentralized digital currencies. (See IDFPR news release here). As previously covered in InfoBytes, the IDFPR requested comments on its proposed guidance in December of last year in order to devise the proper regulatory approach to digital currency in compliance with money transmission definitions in the Illinois Transmitters of Money Act, 205 Ill. Comp. Stat. 657/1, et seq. (TOMA).

    The “Digital Currency Regulatory Guidance” clarifies that digital currencies are not money under TOMA, and therefore, those engaged in the transmission of digital currencies are not generally required to obtain a TOMA license. The IDFPR noted, however, that “should transmission of digital currencies involve money in a transaction, that transaction may be considered money transmission” and suggested persons engaging in such transactions request a determination regarding whether or not the activity will require a TOMA license.

    To provide additional clarity, the guidance includes examples of common types of digital currency transactions that qualify as money transmissions, as well as examples of activities that do not qualify as money transmission.

    Fintech State Issues Digital Commerce Virtual Currency Money Service / Money Transmitters

    Share page with AddThis
  • Connecticut Law Expands Credit Card Fraud Statutes, Addresses Penalties for Rent Collections on Foreclosed Property

    State Issues

    On June 6, Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy signed into law Public Act No. 17-26, which expands the statutes on credit card fraud to cover crimes involving debit cards—including payroll and ATM cards—and outlines larceny penalties for collecting rent on foreclosed property. Paper and electronic checks or drafts are excluded from the definition of debit card under revised measure. Additionally, the law specifies changes pertaining to how “notice of a card’s revocation must be sent for purposes of these crimes and expands certain credit card crimes to cover falsely loading payment cards (credit or debit cards) into digital wallets.” Regarding larceny penalties, the law provides that a “previous mortgagor of real property against whom a final judgment of foreclosure has been entered” cannot continue to collect rent after the final judgment if there is no lawful right to do so. Penalties vary from a class C misdemeanor to a class B felony depending on the amount involved. The law takes effect October 1.

    State Issues Credit Cards Debit Cards Prepaid Cards State Legislation Financial Crimes Mortgages Digital Commerce Fraud

    Share page with AddThis
  • House Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection Holds Hearing to Discuss Consumer Fintech Needs

    Federal Issues

    On June 8, the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection held a hearing to discuss financial products and services offered by the fintech industry to meet consumer needs. (See previous InfoBytes coverage here.) Committee Chairman Rep. Bob Latta (R-Ohio) opened the hearing asserting, “There are serious opportunities for companies to reach consumers with new products to help them create a rainy-day fund for the first time, pay their mortgage securely, rebuild their credit, budget and manage multiple income streams, and invest their earnings . . . Cybersecurity [specifically] is an ongoing challenge, and one the Energy and Commerce Committee is tackling head on.” The June 8 hearing included testimony and recommendations from the following witnesses:

    • Ms. Jeanne Hogarth, Vice President at Center for Financial Services Innovation (CFSI) (statement). Hogarth stated that nearly three out of five American face financial health struggles and spoke about challenges fintech entrepreneurs may face when trying to help consumers, such as (i) “facilitat[ing] interstate and regulatory comity that enables consumers to access and use fintech products and service that promote financial health”; (ii) “support[ing] consumers’ access to their own data”; and (iii) “creat[ing] opportunities for pilot testing of both financial products and services and financial services regulations.” Hogath also detailed CFSI’s Financial Solutions Lab, which identifies financial health challenges faced by consumers and encourages companies to develop ways to address these issues.
    • Mr. Javier Saade, Managing Director at Fenway Summer Ventures (statement). Saade—whose venture capital firm backs emerging fintech companies—stressed the importance of understanding and mitigating associated risks as financial innovation continues to expand. Growth is supported and encouraged, he noted, provided entrepreneurs understand that the “’fail fast and often’ approach, typical of tech-driven startups in other sectors, may not be well suited for the financial services industry.” Furthermore, Saade stated that because “nearly 30 million U.S. households either have no access to financial products or obtain products outside of the banking system . . . even modest strides in achieving economic inclusion present the single largest addressable opportunity in fintech.”
    • Ms. Christina Tetreault, Staff Attorney at Consumer Union (statement). Tetreault, speaking on behalf of Consumer Union (the policy division of Consumer Reports), stated that while financial technology such as virtual currencies, digital cash, and distributed ledgers have the “potential to increase consumer access to safe financial products and return a measure of control to consumers,” safeguards devised between lawmakers and providers must be implemented with appropriate federal and state financial regulator oversight.
    • Mr. Peter Van Valkenburgh, Research Director at Coin Center (statement). Coin Center is a non-profit organization, which focuses on “public policy ramifications of digital currencies and open blockchain networks.” Van Valkenburgh emphasized the need for Congress to (i) create a nationwide federal money transmission license as an alternative to “state by state licensing,” which, in his opinion, emphasizes the needs of individual states rather than addressing the health and risk profile as a whole; and (ii) create a federal safe harbor to “protect Americans developing open blockchain infrastructure.” Van Valkenburgh also encouraged the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to establish federal “fintech charters” to promote a unified approach to regulating blockchain companies.

    Federal Issues Fintech OCC House Energy and Commerce Committee Blockchain Digital Commerce Privacy/Cyber Risk & Data Security

    Share page with AddThis
  • NYDFS Authorizes Coinbase to Offer Trading of Digital Currencies in New York

    FinTech

    On March 22, the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) announced the approval of Coinbase, Inc.’s application to offer Ether and Litecoin to New York customers.  “Ether” is a “digital cryptography-based asset” of the Ethereum network, “similar to how bitcoin is the digital cryptography-based asset of the Bitcoin network.” Litecoin, developed as a modification of the Bitcoin protocol, is the first alternative virtual currency to Bitcoin to gain public acceptance.  NYDFS also approved Coinbase’s linked debit card service “Shift Card”—a VISA debit card that allows Coinbase users in select U.S. states and territories to use Bitcoin anywhere VISA is accepted. As discussed in a previous InfoBytes post, NYDFS recently issued a virtual currency and money transmitter license to Coinbase, which permits the company to operate as a service for buying, selling, sending, receiving, and storing Bitcoin. Financial Services Superintendent Maria T. Vullo noted, “DFS has proven that the state regulatory system is the best way to supervise and cultivate a thriving fintech industry, like virtual currency. New York will remain steadfast in pushing back against federal encroachment efforts like the OCC’s proposal to impose a one-size-fits-all national bank charter that increases risk and seeks to usurp state sovereignty.”

    Fintech Digital Commerce Bitcoin NYDFS Virtual Currency

    Share page with AddThis
  • SEC Denies Application for Bitcoin ETF Due to Lack of Regulation, Potential for Manipulation

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance

    On March 10, 2017, the SEC issued an Order disapproving of a proposed rule change by the BATS BZX Exchange (“the Proposal”), which proposed to list and trade “commodity-based trust shares” issued by the Winklevoss Bitcoin Trust. The Proposal, if approved, would have established a bitcoin exchange-traded fund (“ETF”) that market participants could invest in through the BATS BZX Exchange platform. Specifically, in rejecting the Proposal, the Commission emphasized the lack of regulation in the bitcoin market, noting both (i) that the BATS BZX Exchange platform “would currently be unable to enter into, the type of surveillance-sharing agreement that helps address concerns about the potential for fraudulent or manipulative acts and practices in the market for the Shares”; and (ii) that bitcoin regulation, at present, would leave a bitcoin ETF more susceptible to manipulation than an ETF comprised of other commodities, such as gold and silver. Ultimately, the Commission concluded that, “[a]bsent the ability to detect and deter manipulation of the Shares—through surveillance sharing with significant, regulated markets related to the underlying asset—the [Commission] does not believe that a national securities exchange can meet its” regulatory obligations.

    Comments submitted in response to the original BATS BZX Exchange proposed rule change can be accessed here.

    Securities Fintech Digital Commerce Bitcoin SEC Agency Rule-Making & Guidance

    Share page with AddThis
  • President of Philadelphia Fed Makes an Argument for FinTech Regulation

    Federal Issues

    In prepared remarks at the “Global Interdependence Center’s Payment Systems in the Internet Age” Conference, Philadelphia Fed President Patrick T. Harker said that regulating the evolving FinTech industry benefits not only consumers, but also the innovators. While Harker did not speculate as to whether the Fed will become involved in FinTech regulation, he stated that it is in the best interest of FinTech companies “to have an established framework in which to operate.” He cautioned, however, that “all financial systems are a matter of trust” and thus FinTech firms will “need that trust the same as any other bank or financial institution.” Harker noted that regulations will help determine which companies can survive the “down side” of a credit cycle, but implementing regulations after a “crisis. . . could mean tighter strictures and less room for innovation.”

    Federal Issues Digital Commerce Federal Reserve Fintech Agency Rule-Making & Guidance

    Share page with AddThis
  • Texas Appeals Court Holds Email From: Line to be a Valid Electronic Signature Under State's Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA)

    Courts

    On December 22, in an unpublished decision, a Texas Court of Appeals held that an email exchange constituted an executed contract between two individuals under the state’s enactment of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (“UETA”). Khoury v. Tomlinson, No. 01-16-00006-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 22, 2016). The dispute involved an email sent from Appellant to Appellee, which outlined terms of an agreement to repay investment funds. Appellee responded to the email, stating "We are in agreement," but did not type his name or include a signature block at the end of his message. A jury found that an electronic contract was formed by this exchange, but the trial court granted the Appellee’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the basis that the electronic contract violated the state statute of frauds. On appeal, the Appellant invoked the UETA, arguing that the email satisfied the writing requirement of the statute of frauds because it was an electronic record and that the header, which included a “From:” field bearing the Appellee’s name, constituted Appellee’s signature because that field serves the same “authenticating function” as a signature block. The appellate court agreed that the email was an electronic record sufficient to satisfy the writing requirement in the statute of frauds.

    Courts Digital Commerce Electronic Signatures UETA Payments

    Share page with AddThis
  • CFTC Extends Public Comment Period for Regulation Automated Trading (Reg AT) to May 1

    Federal Issues

    On January 23, the CFTC extended the comment period for the supplemental proposal for Regulation Automated Trading (Regulation AT) from January 24 to May 1. Acting CFTC Chairman Chris Giancarlo recently announced his intention to “allow more time for public comments on the proposal” in light of “the complexity of the supplemental notice and the well-reasoned requests from interested parties.”  Initially proposed in November 2015, the CFTC released a revised version of the rule in November 2016 in response to concerns expressed by trading firms over, among other things, the requirement that they make their source code available to the agency without a subpoena. All comments will be posted on the CFTC’s website.

    Federal Issues Digital Commerce CFTC Fintech

    Share page with AddThis
  • Coinbase Gets NY BitLicense, Clearance For Its Operations

    State Issues

    On January 18, the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) announced that it had approved the application of Coinbase, Inc., for a virtual currency and a money transmitter license. According to NYDFS, the license was issued to Coinbase—a digital currency wallet that facilitates transactions with Bitcoin and other virtual currencies—only after “a comprehensive review of Coinbase’s applications, including the company’s anti-money laundering, capitalization, consumer protection, and cyber security policies.”  Having met the New York regulator’s standards for operations in the state, Coinbase may now operate, under supervision by NYDFS, as a service for buying, selling, sending, receiving and storing Bitcoin.

    As previously covered in InfoBytes, NYDFS’s BitLicense framework—which was finalized back in June 2015—requires virtual currency companies to submit a 31-page application providing information covering, among other things:  (i) written policies and procedures including, but not limited to BSA/AML, cybersecurity, privacy and information security, (ii) company information, (iii) biographical information on company directors and stockholders, and (iv) an explanation of the methodology used to calculate the value of virtual currency in fiat currency. In addition, the NYDFS released a set of FAQs to help clarify the BitLicense requirements. To date, NYDFS has approved five firms for virtual currency charters or licenses, while denying those applications that did not meet its standards.

    State Issues Digital Commerce Anti-Money Laundering NYDFS Bitcoin

    Share page with AddThis

Pages