Regulation Makes Banking on Finance a Tough Gambit for Tech Companies
Tech companies are continuing to push outward into other, more heavily regulated industries, but conquering the financial sector may require toeing some very nebulous lines around banking and money transfers.
January 16, 2020 at 11:30 AM
4 minute read
Tech companies haven't been shy about pushing into heavily regulated industries such as healthcare. But while finance also represents a new frontier of possibilities for the deployment of technology, a dense regulatory landscape may ultimately dictate that progress be slow and steady.
Whether it is Facebook exploring digital currencies or Google planning to introduce consumer bank accounts, a recent article by CNBC pointed out that many tech entities are steering clear of crossing the line into regulated financial institution territory. Still, even those lines can be difficult to navigate, while the possibility of new regulations that deal specifically with fintech may become gridlocked in a battle waged between state and federal regulators.
"I think that financial regulators are trying to be accommodating, but I don't know how successful that's been," said Jeff Hare, co-chair of DLA Piper's financial, regulatory and technology team.
Much of that difficulty may be inherent to banking's long history. Per Hare, banking is unlike other industries in that it has been steadfastly traditional and antiquated in the delivery of its services, which technology by its very nature would disrupt or upend. It's an oil and water situation, a clash of old and new.
For example, tech companies looking to become a money transmitter—a business that provides payment instruments or money transfer services—may have to contend with independent licensing processes in place across 49 states (absent Montana). The alternative is the risky proposition of bringing a technology product operating under geographic restrictions to a national audience.
"That's the message out there, that it's a million dollar investment to get licensed and it's a six to nine-month process. That's hard when folks are anxious to get to market and folks are anxious to use their resources in developing the product, not on getting licenses. So there's definitely an impediment to technology," Hare said.
Tech companies serious about taking the leap into financial services have other options—they just may not be very palatable from a business perspective. Obtaining a federal or state banking charter would free tech companies from certain hurdles—such as having to worry about money transmitter licenses in individual states, for example—but with that trade-off comes ownership restrictions, plus the need for experienced bank employees.
Some tech companies opt to partner with a bank instead, an arrangement that still has to be carefully structured and might cut back on profits. However, with more tech companies pushing into the finance space, could existing regulations see updates or additions? Philip Feigen, an office managing partner of Polsinelli, thinks regulators don't want to stifle the growth of innovative technologies.
"I think the states are very interested in people doing business in their states. They are more apt to try and figure out ways to work with businesses," Feigen said.
But as with regulating other technologies, challenges continue to persist. Feigen pointed out that imposing legal definitions on technology can be difficult, since there's always something that either falls outside the established parameters or quickly evolves beyond what has already been legally established.
Still, regulators have already made attempts to streamline the licensing obstacles confronting fintech companies, but tensions between state and federal authorities have resulted in a stalemate.
Case in point, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) came forward with a national fintech charter in July 2018, but that was quickly met with the threat of multiple lawsuits before eventually being struck down in a October 2019 decision by a judge in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Still, the story may not be over—the OCC filed an appeal this past December.
"[States] are not comfortable with the OCC getting the authority to regulate things that they typically regulate themselves," Hare said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1While Data Breaches May Lead to Years of Legal Battles, Cyberattacks Can be Prevented
- 2The Definition of Special Employment
- 3People in the News—Nov. 21, 2024—Willig Williams, Hangley Aronchick
- 4Rawle & Henderson Hires New Del. Managing Partner
- 5Divided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250