Regulation
Funders Comply With New Texas MCA Law
September 2, 2025As Texas implements the prohibition on ACH debits made by sales-based financing providers, here’s a working list of how funders are acting to comply:
Bitty: offering fixed-term installment loan. (see announcement)
CFG Merchant Solutions: offering fixed-term installment loan. (see announcement)
Merit Business Funding: Exempt from the law due to being a subsidiary of Meridian Bank. (See announcement)
Spartan Capital: offering fixed-term installment loan. (See announcement)
LCF Group: offering small business loans. (See announcement)
Backd Business Funding: offering term loans through their partnership with FinWise Bank.
If you are a sales-based or revenue-based financing provider that is continuing to fund in Texas and would like to be added here, email sean@debanked.com
CA Debt Settlement Bill is Amended to Exclude MCAs, Factoring and Only Include Loans
July 11, 2025After deBanked reported on a commercial financing debt settlement bill moving its way through the state legislature in California, a committee promptly revised the whole thing to specify that it should be for commercial loans only. The language was revised to remove its applicability to “accounts receivable purchase transactions, including factoring, asset-based lending transactions, or lease financing transactions.”
The most recent version of the bill can be viewed here.
California Bill Seeks to Rein in Debt Settlement Companies That Target MCAs / Business Loan Borrowers
July 7, 2025AB-1166 in California has been quietly moving through the legislature in California since February. The bill seeks to amend the Fair Debt Settlement Practices Act to include commercial financing recipients with consumer borrowers as a covered and protected group. Per the bill, “Commercial Financing means an accounts receivable purchase transaction, including factoring, asset-based lending transaction, commercial loan, commercial open-end credit plan, or lease financing transaction intended by the recipient for use primarily for other than personal, family, or household purposes.”
If it became law, debt settlement providers would be prohibited from engaging in misleading practices, have to provide specific disclosures, allow the business owner to cancel the debt settlement agreement at any time, have to provide monthly statements, itemize their compensation, and more.
The full text can be read here. It recently passed through the Senate Banking and Financial Institutions committee on July 2.
CFPB’s Funding Cut Almost in Half
July 3, 2025The current Administration’s “Big Beautiful Bill” that passed Thursday includes a paragraph that modifies the CFPB’s annual funding budget. In 2010, The Consumer Financial Protection Act, which created the CFPB, stipulated that that no more than twelve percent of the annual total operating expenses of the Federal Reserve System shall be transferred to the agency. The new law has amended that down to 6.5%.
For perspective, the CFPB received $729.4M from the Fed in FY 2024 but could have drawn up to $785.4M. Had the new cap already been in place, the agency would’ve only been entitled to take up to $425M.
All eyes had been on the CFPB in the small business finance industry where massive regulations relating to how such companies collect data were supposed to have gone into effect this month. The agency ultimately suspended compliance with the rules by one year and said it intends to rewrite those rules in the interim. The agency is required by the fifteen year-old statute to implement some form of data collection on small business lending.
Texas Governor Signs Sales-Based Financing ACH Prohibition Into Law
June 21, 2025
Texas Governor Greg Abbott has signed HB 700 which prohibits a sales-based financing provider from automatically debiting any merchant in the state unless they are in a perfected 1st position. And not just a 1st position MCA, a 1st position above anything else at all. It doesn’t matter if the funder doing the debiting is located out of state, only that the merchant be located in Texas.
The law broadly encompasses purchase transactions (MCAs) or loans where the payments ebb and flow with sales activity (revenue-based finance loans). Companies with a special bank relationship are exempt from the law. The exemption applies to: “a bank, out-of-state bank, bank holding company, credit union, federal credit union, out-of-state credit union, or any subsidiary or affiliate of those financial institutions.”
The specific language detailing the prohibition is:
CERTAIN AUTOMATIC DEBITS PROHIBITED.
A provider or commercial sales-based financing broker may not establish a mechanism for automatically debiting a recipient’s deposit account unless the provider or broker holds a validly perfected security interest in the recipient’s account under Chapter 9, Business & Commerce Code, with a first priority against the claims of all other persons.
The full law goes even further than the ACH ban, the extent of which can be viewed here. The law goes into effect on September 1, 2025.
CFPB Small Business Lending Rule Compliance Delayed a Year
June 17, 2025
The CFPB has officially hit the pause button on complying with the small business lending data collection rules. They were supposed to go into effect next month. The Agency, however, announced in April that it planned to rewrite all of the rules and would not enforce them in the interim. Alas, covered parties wondered if they were still required to comply regardless of the whims on enforcement. Consequently, a new deadline for compliance was set for July 1, 2026. That assumes the new rules are ready by then or that there are no further delays.
The rules have technically been delayed by fifteen years already since the law requiring such rules to be implemented was passed in 2010 (Dodd-Frank). Other priorities, politics, debates over the legislation’s scope, and endless litigation relating to it pushed back rule-making and compliance to where it is now. During Trump’s first term, there was even disagreement as to what the CFPB should even be called. deBanked has been covering the law for more than 10 years.
The law had previously been deemed applicable to both loans and merchant cash advances. The rules had been codified in 888 pages of guidelines.
The Battle Against MCA in Texas
June 12, 2025David Roitblat is the founder and CEO of Better Accounting Solutions, an accounting firm based in New York City, and a leading authority in specialized accounting for merchant cash advance companies.To connect with David or schedule a call about working with Better Accounting Solutions, email david@betteraccountingsolutions.com.
Texas, a state associated with limited government intervention and freedom of business to operate and succeed in a capitalist society, stands at a crossroads.
Governor Greg Abbott has until June 22nd to decide whether to sign House Bill 700 into law—a decision that could fundamentally reshape how small businesses access capital in the Lone Star State. If he signs it, or simply lets the deadline pass without action, this sweeping legislation will take effect on September 1, 2025. The action will potentially cut off vital funding sources for thousands of Texas entrepreneurs, in a direct assault on the merchant cash advance industry that has been a lifeline for the people of his state.
The stakes couldn’t be higher. While supporters frame HB 700 as consumer protection, this bill targets sales-based financing—financial tools that have become lifelines for small businesses shut out of traditional bank lending.
Small business owners know the frustration of walking into a bank and walking out empty-handed all too well. Traditional lenders have tightened their belts, especially for newer businesses, minority-owned enterprises, and companies in industries deemed “risky.” When a restaurant owner needs quick capital to fix a broken freezer, or a contractor requires funds to purchase materials for a big job, they can’t wait weeks for a bank’s approval process. They need solutions now.
That’s where alternatives come in. Revenue-based financing provides capital based on future sales, not credit scores or lengthy financial histories. Yes, they can be more expensive than bank loans—but they’re also available when banks say no.
This financing drives business growth, job creation, and the health of Main Street. When small businesses can access capital quickly, they expand, hire employees, and strengthen their communities.
HB 700 goes far beyond simple disclosure requirements. While transparency is important—and most responsible providers already provide clear terms—this bill creates a regulatory maze that could price many providers out of the Texas market entirely.
The bill imposes sweeping new requirements that will fundamentally change how sales-based financing companies operate in Texas. Companies providing commercial sales-based financing must register with the Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner by December 31, 2026, including both direct providers and brokers, with mandatory annual renewals and fees.
For any financing under $1 million, sales-based financing providers must provide extensive disclosures covering everything from total financing amounts and disbursement details to payment schedules, additional fees, prepayment penalties, and even broker compensation arrangements. The operational restrictions go much deeper, voiding confession of judgment clauses entirely and requiring companies to obtain recipient signatures on all disclosures before finalizing any transaction.
Perhaps most problematic is the prohibition on automatic debiting of recipient accounts unless companies hold a “validly perfected first-priority security interest”—a legal standard that’s nearly impossible to meet in practice and effectively kills the streamlined payment processes that make revenue-based financing work for the funders, and by extension, the merchants.
The Finance Commission of Texas gains broad authority to identify and prohibit “unfair, deceptive, or abusive” practices, though interestingly, they cannot set maximum interest rates or fees. Violations carry steep civil penalties of $10,000 each, and the law applies to any provider offering services to Texas recipients via the Internet, regardless of where the company is physically located. These aren’t minor regulatory adjustments—they represent a complete overhaul that could drive legitimate capital providers out of the Texas market entirely.
This isn’t just bureaucratic red tape. It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of how modern business financing works. Revenue-based financing depends on streamlined payment processes tied to daily sales. Without this mechanism, the entire business model becomes unworkable.
If HB 700 becomes law, the consequences will ripple through Texas’s economy. Small businesses already struggling with inflation, labor shortages, and supply chain disruptions will lose access to flexible financing options. Rural businesses, minority-owned enterprises, and startups will be hit hardest—exactly the businesses Texas should be supporting.
The irony is stark. Texas has built its reputation as a business-friendly state, attracting companies fleeing overregulation in other states. HB 700 threatens to undermine that competitive advantage by making it harder for small businesses to access the capital they need to grow.
The voices of actual small business owners have been largely absent from this debate. Many don’t even know this legislation exists, despite its potential impact on their operations. Those who are aware express frustration that lawmakers are making decisions about their financing options without understanding their real-world needs.
Governor Abbott faces a clear choice. He can sign legislation that will likely drive responsible funders out of Texas, or he can recognize that small businesses need access to diverse financing options.
The goal should be protecting businesses from truly predatory practices while preserving their ability to access capital when traditional banks won’t help. That requires nuanced policy, not broad restrictions that treat all alternative finance providers as predators.
The battle against MCA regulation in Texas isn’t really about merchant cash advances—it’s about whether Texas will remain a place where small businesses can find the capital they need to thrive. Governor Abbott’s decision will determine not just the fate of HB 700, but the future of small business financing in Texas.
The countdown has begun. Texas small businesses are watching and waiting.
North Dakota Law Regulates “Alternative Financing” as a “Loan”
May 30, 2025The state legislature in North Dakota recently passed House Bill 1127. This bill made a simple amendment to a 1970s-era law called the Money Brokers Act (“MBA”).
Despite its name, the MBA is not limited to brokers. It is the primary law regulating consumer and commercial lending in North Dakota. It applies to any person engaged in the act of arranging or providing loans. Such persons are called “money brokers” in the MBA.
This amendment adds a two-sentence definition of the word “loan”. When this amendment takes effect, the MBA will define “loan” as follows:
“Loan” means a contract by which one delivers a sum of money to another and the latter agrees to return at a future time a sum equivalent to that which the person borrowed. This includes alternative financing products as identified by the commissioner through the issuance of an order.
Is this is a big deal? Yes. Here’s why.
Until now, the MBA has always defined the term “money brokering” to include the act of providing “loans” but has never defined the term “loan”. As a result, forms of business financing that are not typically considered loans – such as factoring or revenue-based financing (also sometimes called “merchant cash advance”) would not be subject to the MBA. Adding this new definition of “loan” to the MBA creates significant risk that alternative forms of business financing will become subject to the regulatory burdens impose by MBA.
Those burdens are significant. The MBA requires money brokers to obtain a license from the North Dakota Department of Financial Institutions (“DFI”). The MBA also caps the maximum amount of fees and charges that can be impose by a money broker at a rate of 36% per year.
With this new definition, the North Dakota Department of Financial Institutions (“DFI”) can now issue an order designating any financing product as a loan subject to the MBA. Does the DFI intend to regulate revenue-based financing? That’s unknown at this time. The Commissioner of Financial Institutions provided a memorandum to the legislature stating that the new definition would allow DFI to ensure that North Dakota’s citizens “will have access to new lending products, without sacrificing safeguards”. It is possible that the Commissioner is intending to focus on consumer financing products and not commercial financing. Even if that’s the case, that’s small comfort.
There is still a problem with this law because the first sentence of the definition is simply too broad. It states that a “loan” includes a transaction with the following two features:
1. There is a contract by which a sum of money is delivered to another.
- A typical revenue-based financing is structured as a purchase of a merchant’s future revenue at a discounted purchase price. The purchase price is a sum of money delivered to the merchant.
- Invoice factoring transactions also involve a delivery of funds in the amount of the face value of the invoice minus a discount and/or a reserve.
2. At a future time, the person receiving that money agrees to return an “equivalent” sum.
- In revenue-based financing, the merchant agrees to deliver the purchased amount based on an agreed-upon percentage of the merchant’s revenue stream. Arguably this is a “sum of money” equivalent to the purchase price advanced to the merchant.
- Factoring is a bit more complicated. In recourse factoring, a factoring client sometimes is required to repurchase an invoice from the factor if the invoice is not paid on time. The repurchase price is based on the face value of the invoice. Arguably this is a “sum of money” equivalent to the face value of the invoice minus a discount and/or a reserve.
Even if the DFI does not order that revenue-based financing or factoring are loans, a North Dakota court could take the position that the definition of “loan” is now so broad that these products are already loans under the revised MBA. No DFI order is needed.
If a North Dakota court concludes these products are now subject to regulation under the MBA, including its 36% rate cap, then this opens the door for North Dakota businesses that obtain financing to sue any provider that imposes charges that effectively exceed that rate cap.
It’s not clear whether the North Dakota legislature understands what it just did. This amendment was part of a legislative package that was primarily focused on data security. The addition of the “loan” definition would be difficult to find if you weren’t looking for it. House Bill 1127 passed with almost unanimous support. Did all those legislators understand that this law could drive away products that offer working capital to businesses that badly need liquidity and don’t have access to a bank line of credit? I doubt it.
Does this mean that providers of alternative financing should stop funding in North Dakota? That’s a business decision. We’ll certainly be watching to see if the DFI provides any guidance on any kind of “alternative financing” product it considers to be a loan. But providers of revenue-based financing and factoring should start thinking about whether they might need an MBA license North Dakota and whether they can live with the MBA’s 36% rate cap.
According to the North Dakota legislature’s website, this change in the MBA is likely to take effect on August 1, 2025. That gives you some time to think about whether North Dakota is still a viable market for your financial products.
