Payment Systems – Page 7 – FinTech and Blockchain Law Watch

CFPB Finalizes Extension of Prepaid Account Rule Effective Date

May 01 2017

On April 20, the CFPB issued a final rule to delay for six months the October 1, 2017 effective date of its comprehensive Final Rule amending Regulation E and Regulation Z as applied to prepaid accounts. The Final Rule will now become effective on April 1, 2018.

In announcing the delay, the CFPB indicated that it has decided to “revisit at least two substantive issues” in the Final Rule through a separate rulemaking process. Based on CFPB Director Richard Cordray’s recent testimony before the House Financial Services Committee, the two substantive issues most likely relate to: (1) the Final Rule’s applicability to “the linking of credit cards to digital wallets that are capable of storing funds,” and (2) error resolution for unregistered prepaid cards. The CFPB can be expected to issue a proposal on these issues “in the coming weeks.”

Notably, the CFPB’s action could help to address concerns raised by Congressional Republicans about the scope of the Final Rule and its potential impact on industry participants and consumers, thus complicating ongoing efforts in Congress to repeal the Final Rule using the Congressional Review Act (CRA). In order to repeal the Final Rule utilizing the CRA, Congress would be required to pass a repeal bill by May 9, 2017.

NetSpend Settles FTC Claim Regarding Prepaid Debit Cards

Apr 20 2017

By Julia B. Jacobson and Eric A. Love

NetSpend Corporation has reached a settlement with the U.S. FTC about the FTC’s claims that NetSpend’s advertisements deceived consumers about the availability of funds deposited on general purpose reloadable prepaid cards (GPR Cards).

On its website, NetSpend indicates that its target customers are those without a traditional bank account or who “rely on alternative financial services.” According to the FTC’s November 2016 complaint, NetSpend’s advertising promises “guaranteed approval” and “immediate access” to funds that are “always available.” Instead, the complaint alleges, cardholders experienced delayed or denied access to funds on their GPR Cards and NetSpend depleted account balances by charging inactivity fees and often delayed resolving and providing provisional credit for account errors. The FTC also noted in its complaint that thousands of customers “complained about NetSpend’s practices to government authorities, Better Business Bureau and NetSpend itself.”

Adapt or die, the reality for retail banks during a digital revolution

Mar 26 2017

By Cameron Abbott and Giles Whittaker

Traditional banking is a thing of the past, at least according to 203 senior retail banking executives surveyed by the Economist Intelligence Unit.

According to an Economist Intelligence Unit report for Temenos, the EU’s Second Payment Services Directive (PSD2), which will force banks to provide interfaces, APIs and data to third parties, is set to “tip the scales between banks and FinTechs for customer loyalty.” More than half of financial transactions will be made through FinTech companies rather than traditional retail banks by 2020, as the latest EU payments directive unleashes competition.

CPMI publishes an analytical framework for DLT

Mar 24 2017

By Giovanni Campi and Ignasi Guardans

The Committee on Payment and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) recently released a report that focuses on the potential impact of distributed ledger technology (DLT) on payment, clearing and settlement.

In providing an analytical framework to approach DLT, CPMI hopes to enhance authorities and market participants’ understanding of this technology. The report reviews the potential implication of DLT for the efficiency and safety of payment, clearing and settlement activities. The last part also analyzes broader implications of DLT for financial markets, in terms of market architecture and connectivity.

Jury Finds Two Guilty in Bitcoin Exchange Bribery Scheme; Related Criminal Prosecutions Looming

Mar 23 2017

By Nicole C. Mueller and Clifford C. Histed

On March 17, 2017, a Manhattan federal jury convicted Trevon Gross, a pastor, and Yuri Lebedev, a software engineer, of bribery and of conspiring to operate bitcoin exchange Coin.mx as an unlawful money transmitting business. The jury also convicted Lebedev of fraud. Sentencing is scheduled for July 2017.

Lebedev and Coin.mx operator Anthony Murgio were charged in 2015. Coin.mx allegedly operated as a conduit for cybercrime-related funds, and in violation of state and federal money transmitting laws. Prosecutors argued to the jury that Murgio and Lebedev sought to trick the financial institutions through which Coin.mx processed transactions into believing its unlawful bitcoin exchange business was simply a members-only “collectibles club.” Part of the Coin.mx scheme included processing and profiting from bitcoin transactions conducted on behalf of victims of ransomware attacks by allowing the victims to buy bitcoins to pay ransom payments while generating revenue for Coin.mx. Murgio pleaded guilty before trial.

The Age of Blockchain

Mar 08 2017

Tom Wallace and Tyler Kirk contributed an article to American Lawyer on the impact blockchain is having on companies around the world. The article discusses the potential business development opportunities and the ways companies can leverage the technology including what companies must do in order to capitalize on this emerging area.

To read the article, click here

Smart Contract Code versus Smart Legal Contracts

Jan 24 2017

By Susan P. Altman

In a recent CoinDesk Op-Ed, Josh Stark makes a useful distinction between smart contract code and smart legal contracts. He describes smart contract code as a program or script executed on a blockchain—this code being what many commentators misleadingly refer to as “smart contracts.” This (mis)use of the phrase has led lawyers to quip that smart contracts are neither smart nor contracts, they’re just code. The better term for blockchain code-enabled legal contracts is “smart legal contracts.”

Although Stark helps us a lot with terminology, his argument goes a little askew in suggesting that smart contract technology enables machine to machine commerce without enforcement by legal entities and therefore is a new tool for solving the problem of trust between trading parties. Individuals and companies are legal entities and at least two of them hold an interest behind every machine operation executing smart contract code. Just because there is no intermediary between the two (or more) parties to the transaction does not mean that traditional legal contract principles do not apply. Smart contract code speeds up and increases integrity in trading transactions by reducing friction in forming, executing and enforcing a contract. It is a new tool in our toolkit, but the toolkit is for building traditional legal contracts. Offer and acceptance, coupled with consideration, are still the basic principles of contracts, whether they are smart, stupid, oral, written or digital.

Automobile Companies Collide With Payment Providers

Jan 24 2017

By Jeremy M. McLaughlin

At the annual consumer electronics show in Las Vegas earlier this month, Honda demonstrated an in-vehicle payments platform. Through a partnership with Visa, Honda will enable drivers to pay for a variety of services through their car, such as for parking and fuel. The car manufacturer made clear, however, that it wanted to enable in-car payments for a variety of other services in the future.

Honda is not alone. Volkswagen Financial Services AG recently announced that it had purchased mobile payment platform PayByPhone. Ford has announced a virtual wallet service called FordPay. And on January 17, 2017, Daimler Financial Services AG announced that it had acquired PayCash Europe SA and was planning to launch its own epayments service, “Mercedes pay.” Read More

Paying for the Wall: Will President Trump’s Administration Scrutinize, Tax, or Seize Remittances?

Jan 20 2017

By Joseph A. Valenti, Daniel F. C. Crowley, Michael R. Komo

One of the most significant post-election questions for the financial-services industry—particularly global financial institutions that move money across borders—is what is the status of President-elect Trump’s proposal to tax electronic remittances to Mexico to pay for the wall between Mexico and the United States?

To read the full alert, click here.

Competition concerns in the payment systems market

Jan 16 2017

By Jonathan Lawrence

The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has found that Mastercard’s acquisition of VocaLink gives rise to UK competition/anti-trust concerns. Mastercard UK Holdco Ltd, a subsidiary of Mastercard International Incorporated (Mastercard), is buying VocaLink Holdings Ltd (VocaLink).

Mastercard already owns and operates credit and debit card schemes Mastercard, Maestro and Cirrus, and has also bid to supply infrastructure services to UK interbank payment systems. VocaLink is a supplier of payment infrastructure services to three major UK interbank payment systems:

Bacs, the automated clearing system allowing credit and debit payments between bank accounts;
the Faster Payments Service (FPS), which enables near ‘real-time’ payments between bank accounts within the UK; and
the LINK ATM network.

Category:Payment Systems