Regulation
Connecticut Commercial Financing Bill Moving Forward
April 29, 2026Connecticut’s commercial financing bill is moving its way through the state legislature. See it here.
Like a few other states it applies to merchant cash advances and it includes an APR requirement. While an earlier version of the bill exempted all sales-based financing transactions above $250,000 from the rules, it removed the threshold and made all transactions of all sizes subject to them. Both brokers and funders would be required to register with the Banking Department in order to offer commercial financing to Connecticut-based merchants.
Bill Proposed to Amend CFPB’S Small Business Data Collection Rule
April 27, 2026
A simple bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives to amend the CFPB’s small business data collection rules. The 888-page rulebook has been undergoing an internal reconfiguration by the CFPB itself but in this instance members of Congress are attempting to make minor changes through legislation.
These proposed changes are as follows:
• Amend the definition of small business to mean a business that does $1 million a year in revenue versus the $5 million defined in the last iteration of the rules.
• Amend covered financial institutions as ones that do at least 500 credit transactions a year versus the 100 transaction threshold defined in the last iteration of the rules.
This bill is called the “Small Lenders Exempt from New Data and Excessive Reporting Act.”
The small business lending data collection rules drafted by the CFPB have been the subject of controversy since 2010 when the law requiring the agency collect small business loan data was first passed. Sixteen years later there has still been much disagreement as to what was actually intended to be collected, from whom it is to be collected from, the manner in which this collection takes place, and what can be done with the data itself once it’s in the agency’s hands. The agency is likely to release an amended version of the rules sometime this year.
229 Companies Now Registered as Sales-Based Financing Providers in Virginia
April 20, 2026Almost four years since Virginia’s sales-based financing provider law went into effect, the state now lists 229 registered parties. That’s an increase of only 27 companies since last year.
Both funders and brokers are required to be registered if they intend to transact with Virginia-based merchants, subject to some exceptions. Registrants on the list include some big recognizable names like eBay Commerce, First Data Merchant Services, PayPal, and Wal-Mart.com USA, but dozens of smaller known MCA broker shops also appear.
If you are a broker or funder in MCA and are not registered to do deals with Virginia-based merchants, you should contact a knowledgeable industry attorney to get set up right away. The law went into effect in 2022.
Concerned About The MCA Automatic Debit Law in Texas? This ACH Company Says There’s a Way
March 25, 2026
There may be no need to overcomplicate Merchant Cash Advance compliance in Texas. A key phrase in the MCA prohibition law that went into effect last year specifies that it’s a prohibition on “establishing a mechanism for automatically debiting a recipient’s account” unless a lot of other requirements are met.
One company looked closely at that piece of the language and came up with a simple solution.
“…our approach is to request the payment at each time and capture the authorization at the time of the transaction,” said John Innes, President of the Texas-based and aptly-named ACH Processing Company. “So instead of capturing an authorization at the beginning and embedding that into the documents where you’re going to do a recurring debit transaction to the merchant’s account, you are sending a request saying, ‘Okay, please authorize this payment.’ And so each payment is individually authorized so you don’t need that security interest [component] anymore.”
No automatic recurring debits. Instead there’s a Request For Payment that requires merchants to manually authorize debits on a debit-by-debit basis whether that be daily, weekly, or monthly, depending on whatever the agreed frequency is.
“I think this was maybe the intent of the law,” Innes continued. “It gives the merchant kind of that control over that debit and it fosters communication between the two parties.”
Innes said there’s various ways that this interaction can be conducted to reduce the friction of this process.
Other options proposed across the industry have focused on another piece of the language, that the prohibition is specifically meant for “commercial sales-based financing providers” and the proposed cure for that is to offer a non-sales-based financing product in the state instead. ACH Processing Company’s solution, however, allows an MCA funder to keep its product suite as-is.
“…you don’t have to break all that,” said Innes. “Continue with the same business plan. ”
Since the Texas law went into effect seven months ago, Innes says that numerous funders have still been in a holding pattern trying to figure out how to approach it. It’s their belief that this solution is a simple way to now get Texas turned back on if they’re ready.
California Bill Asserts Businesses Generating Up to $18 Million/Year in Sales Need Consumer Protections
March 10, 2026California’s AB2116 is proposing to amend the state’s Consumer Financial Protection Law and declare that small businesses generating less than $18 million a year in revenue be considered a consumer for the purpose of consumer financial protections.
“Small business” means a business entity organized for profit with annual gross receipts of no more than sixteen million dollars ($16,000,000) or the annual gross receipt level as biennially adjusted by the Department of General Services in accordance with Section 14837 of the Government Code, whichever is greater.-AB2116
The DGS alternative, when applied to the “whichever is greater” test, currently sits at $18 million, making that the current applicable baseline for what is small.
“Small business owners are often similarly situated as consumers with regards to their sophistication and bargaining power relative to providers of financial services and products,” the bill says. “Many of the rationales supporting legal protections for consumers apply also to small business owners. Small businesses have a better chance to survive and grow if they are able to access safe and effective financial products and are protected from unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices when accessing financial products and services.”
For comparison’s sake, deBanked tracked one online small business lender that originated $200 million in business loans that generated just $14.3M in revenue. Per the bill, this lender would also be presumed an unsophisticated consumer that is unable to bargain on financial service products without consumer protections.
CFPB Costs Consumers At Least 10x More Than They Get Back
February 19, 2026A new study published by the White House Council of Economic Advisors found that the CFPB costs consumers more than it saves them. According to the report, CFPB regulations increased borrowing costs to consumers by $222 billion to $350 billion over the time period of 2011 – 2024. In return the CFPB has touted that it has returned more than $21 billion to consumers over the same time period.
A takeaway is that the while the CFPB has provided the optics of doing good for consumers it has actually cost them far in excess of the perceived benefit to them.
No, Texas Did Not Ban Merchant Cash Advances
January 28, 2026
When Texas passed HB 700 last June, deBanked was among the first to point out that its most notable component was a prohibition on automatic debits of a recipient’s deposit account by a commercial sales-based financing provider unless they had a perfected first position. Some observers were quick to tell us that we had it all wrong, that MCAs had effectively been “banned” entirely and that we should have reported it that way. This was premised on a belief that perfecting a true first position on a recipient’s deposit account was a near-insurmountable obstacle (for MCAs that rely on ACHs instead of credit card splits) and thus a nuanced discussion of how to comply with the new law a moot debate.
But if the state legislature had intended to ban sales-based financing outright, it simply could have done so. Instead, it codified a framework for how to legally provide sales-based financing. It provided guidance on registration, disclosure, and oversight. And it even went as far as to say that the Finance Commission of Texas cannot “adopt a maximum annual percentage rate, finance charge, or fee for commercial sales-based financing transactions.” This was an incredible signal: No cost cap on sales-based financing.
The Texas Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner (OCCC) even held an open forum this past November to hear from impacted parties on the best way to craft and enforce the rules going forward. And so while they’re now busy promulgating those precise rules, collective minds have returned back to the original language surrounding that “certain automatic debits” are “prohibited.”
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.
This language does not say that merchants cannot pay sales-based financing providers entirely. Others agree. deBanked spoke with one company, MCA Pay, which analyzed what the law says and they created a tool for merchants to pay sales-based financing providers in an orderly easy manner so that funders do not in fact have to automatically debit a recipient’s deposit account at all. Though there are some layers to how it’s done, merchants are, on their own volition, setting up a system to initiate payments to whichever funder they choose. They’re in control.
Far from theoretical, this methodology is already being used by merchants in Texas to pay sales-based financing providers, according to MCA Pay.
“We’re comfortable from a regulatory perspective, but I encourage everybody who uses this platform to run this by their counsel,” a representative said. “We’re putting the control back into the merchant’s hands.”
The two main partners at MCA Pay, Gavriel Kalfa and Moshe Klar, do not hail from within the industry, but they worked with experienced operators in the industry while building out the system. MCA Pay is not the payments provider or a law firm, they’re just the platform that loops the pieces together.
“Hopefully we’ve made a product here that’s going to allow MCA to continue in Texas compliantly for everybody,” they said.
New Jersey Reintroduces APR Disclosure Bill for Commercial Financing
January 14, 2026A commercial financing APR disclosure bill was introduced in the New Jersey State Senate on Tuesday. The bill is mostly templated from other state legislation in which estimated APR disclosures on sales-based financing transactions would be determinable by using either the Historical method or Opt-in method. Senator Troy Singleton introduced it as Senate Bill 1760 and it is described as a bill that “requires certain disclosures by providers of commercial financing.” It can be viewed here.
