Andrew E. Bigart

Subscribe to Andrew E. Bigart's Posts

Andrew Bigart focuses his practice on helping bank and non-bank financial institutions navigate the federal and state regulatory environment governing payments, lending, and consumer financial services. Andrew provides regulatory and business counseling advice to clients across a variety of industries, including banks, payments companies, money transmitters, broker-dealers, lenders, and trade associations. He counsels clients on regulatory compliance matters, contract negotiations, due diligence, federal and state examinations, and civil investigations and litigation before federal and state banking and financial institution regulators. Andrew has been recognized by Legal 500 and named to the Electronic Transactions Association's Forty under 40 list.

Contact:Read more about Andrew E. Bigart

On June 16, 2023, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) released an update to its Supervisory Guidance on Multiple Re-Presentment NSF Fees (FIL-40-2022) (the “Guidance”), to provide additional guidance for supervised institutions on the consumer compliance risks associated with assessing multiple non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees for the re-presentment of unpaid transactions. This alert discusses the potential risks the FDIC identified and outlines the risk mitigation practices that supervised institutions can implement to mitigate risks when processing multiple re-presentment NSF fees.

Although the Guidance’s applicability is limited to FDIC supervised institutions, the information provided on potential risks and mitigation practices should be taken into consideration by any financial institutions or merchants that assess multiple re-presentment NSF fees in connection with billing consumers.…

Continue Reading FDIC Releases Revised Supervisory Guidance on Multiple Re-Presentment NSF Fees

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently announced a settlement with a group of related companies and two of their officers that used a merchant of record (MoR) model to facilitate sales for merchants. According to the FTC, the MoR businesses violated the law by assisting and facilitating fraudulent telemarketing sales of tech support services and laundering credit card charges through the defendants’ own merchant processing accounts.

The MoR model is one of several novel models payments companies and platforms have launched in the marketplace. While numerous compliance questions related to money transmission and unlawful payments aggregation abound, this particular FTC case warns that consumer protection agencies are taking a closer look at risks presented by the MoR model.…

Continue Reading Increasing Regulatory Scrutiny for the Merchant of Record Model

On February 27, 2023, the Supreme Court granted the certiorari petition of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to hear a case that could cast doubt on all of the regulations that have been promulgated by the bureau to date, as well as all pending investigations and litigation brought by the agency.

The Court will consider in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) v. Community Financial Services Association of America (CFSA) whether the CFPB’s funding mechanism violates the Appropriations Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says, “no money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by the law.”…

Continue Reading Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case Involving CFPB Funding

The explosion in Buy-Now-Pay-Later (BNPL) has caught the eyes of lawmakers and regulators, who are taking a closer look at this booming industry.

BNPL payment offers allow consumers to purchase goods or services now and pay for them over time, often through a short series of installments (for example, four payments spaced two weeks apart). Industry researchers have found that Gen Z consumers increased their use of BNPL products from 6% in 2019 to 36% in 2021. However, with this growth, lawmakers and regulators have voiced concerns about BNPL, including that consumers may easily spend more than they can afford and rack up multiple BNPL purchases with varying payment schedules and payment terms.

Read our 360 Degree Analysis of Buy-Now-Pay-Pater Products

The list of consumer protection concerns raised by lawmakers and regulators is long. Consumers may face late fees, fees for failed payments, payment rescheduling fees, early payoff fees, account reactivation fees, or other fees charged by BNPL providers that may not be readily apparent.…

Continue Reading The Buy-Now-Pay-Later Boom Gets Consumer Protection Attention

As the payments industry continues to evolve at a lightning pace, one of the newest developments is the ability for payments companies to leverage card network services to “push” payments to cardholders. Earlier this year, the technology gained attention as a potentially safe and efficient way to transfer funds in response to the challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, as businesses shift to a remote environment, push-to-card services can provide benefits for both individuals and businesses, including for person-to-person (P2P) money transfer, funds disbursement, and bill payment, among other uses. And with the increased focus on “faster payments,” push technology has been discussed as a private sector means to speed up transaction settlement.
Continue Reading Pushing to the Forefront – Get Ready for Push-to-Card Payments

With much of the economy disrupted as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, one area that continues to grow is automated clearing house (ACH) payments, according to data recently released by Nacha, the non-profit that governs ACH payments. While the recent jump in ACH volume was driven in part by the delivery of federal stimulus payments, it is reflective of a longer term trend of growth in the industry, as ACH becomes increasingly popular for consumer bill payment (rent and utilities), health care payments, payroll processing, and business account payables

Also contributing to the growth in ACH payments is the ability of banks to partner with “third-party senders” to facilitate the origination of ACH payments. Like a payment facilitator in the credit card space, a third-party sender can help a bank expand its ACH origination capabilities by signing up customers to receive the bank’s ACH services. Working with a third-party sender, however, can increase a bank’s exposure to legal, compliance, credit, and reputation risks. These risks are reflected in news articles last year about an ACH payroll processor in New York that allegedly absconded with almost $30 million of its clients’ payroll and tax payments.

As ACH continues to grow, it is critical for banks and their partners to understand the ins and outs of facilitating these payments. Accordingly, this article provides a brief overview of the ACH system, the roles and responsibilities of the key players, and best practices for minimizing risk when banks partner with third-party senders.
Continue Reading Managing Risks in Third-Party Sender ACH Processing

Following a warning from earlier this year, the FTC recently filed a complaint against a group of corporate and individual defendants for allegedly misleading and deceiving small business “merchant cash advance” (MCA) customers. Structured properly, an MCA product offers an alternative to standard commercial credit under which the MCA provider purchases the right to receive a fixed amount of the customer’s receivables to be paid based on a percentage of the customer’s daily receipts.

Specifically, the FTC alleged that the defendants misrepresented the amount of financing small business customers would receive relative to their requests, misrepresented the necessity of collateral and personal guarantees, and engaged in unauthorized withdrawals from customers’ bank accounts even after receiving the agreed upon amount of the customers’ receivables. The complaint calls for permanent injunctive relief, rescission or reformation of the MCA contracts, restitution, refund and disgorgement.

The FTC’s enforcement action is just one of its recent efforts to police alleged unfair and deceptive practices targeting small businesses. Given the current economic disruptions caused by COVID-19, we can expect that the FTC will continue to attack both deception and improper debt collection aimed at small businesses.…

Continue Reading FTC Follows up on Enforcement Priorities with Complaint Against Merchant Cash Advance Provider

The regulatory framework for online gambling recently took a wild turn when the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”) announced its view that the Wire Act (18 U.S.C. § 1084) applies to all forms of gambling—not merely sports betting. This marked a 180-degree reversal from the stance the OLC took just seven years earlier. The OLC’s 2011 opinion—which itself departed from public positions the DOJ had previously taken—was the foundation upon which today’s state-regulated online gambling industry is built. Four states—Delaware, Nevada, New Jersey and Pennsylvania—currently allow online gambling, and Michigan came close to legalizing it at the end of last year, although outgoing Governor Snyder vetoed the bipartisan bill in a surprise move. The OLC’s follow-on announcement gives now-unlawful online gambling businesses 90 days to bring their operations into compliance with federal law before Wire Act enforcement will begin under this newly expanded view. Below, we contemplate what enforcement of the industry will look like in light of this recent announcement.

Perhaps we will see a Cole memo-esque enforcement regime, where the feds will exercise discretion not to prosecute well-behaved online gambling businesses operated in accordance with robust state regulatory frameworks. After all, legal online gambling businesses and their service providers are already subject to extensive vetting, and in Delaware, online gambling is state-run. Regardless, we expect the DOJ to publish internal guidelines for how the feds should prosecute cases—this is a model that has been used in other areas, and would presumably outline the specific factors under which proposed enforcement would be reviewed and approved.…

Continue Reading DOJ Reverses Course on the Wire Act, Changing the Odds on the State-Regulated Gambling Industry

As 2019 goes into full swing, it’s important for providers of payment processing services (referred to here as “acquirers”) and their merchants or submerchants to prepare for the various regulatory and industry changes coming this year. One such significant change comes in the form of Mastercard’s updated rules for negative option billing programs.

Set to take effect on April 12, 2019, Mastercard’s new rules will tighten consumer protection requirements for negative option merchants and their acquirers that process Mastercard transactions. Several laws such as the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act, and various state laws already apply to negative option billing programs, but Mastercard’s new rules go even further. Among other things, the rules include a requirement for merchants to notify consumers at the end of a trial period before charging the consumer.

Applicability

Notably, the new rules cover any card-not-present transaction where the consumer purchases a subscription to automatically receive a physical product (such as cosmetics, healthcare products, or vitamins) on a recurring basis. Fully digital services are not covered.

This means the rules apply to free trial offers and most forms of negative option programs involving product sales. The negative option plan may be initiated by a free trial, nominally priced trial, or no trial at all. However, if a trial is used, special rules apply to ensure the consumer is aware of and consents to subsequent payments at the trial’s conclusion.…

Continue Reading Mastercard Targets Negative Options In 2019 – Demands Transparency

With the ink on the president’s signature barely dry, the commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – Dr. Scott Gottlieb – issued a statement letting everyone know that the agency is aware of the implications of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (a/k/a the Farm Bill). As we reported last month, CBD derived from hemp may not be “marijuana” any longer, but the laws that the FDA enforces continue to prohibit (at least, in the FDA’s view) the manufacture and distribution of foods and dietary supplements containing CBD. Dr. Gottlieb took this opportunity to reiterate the agency’s position, noting that “it’s unlawful under the [Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act] to introduce food containing CBD or THC into interstate commerce, or to market CBD or THC products as, or in, dietary supplements, regardless of whether the substances are hemp-derived.”

The commissioner also indicated, however, that the agency will initiate a process for reexamining current policy, stating:…

Continue Reading CBD Update: The FDA Commissioner Cannot Ignore the Buzz – But Is Further Deregulation on the Horizon?