Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

Payments & Fintech

Welcoming Sandy Brown

On September 22, 2026, we welcomed Sandhya “Sandy” P. Brown to Alston & Bird’s Litigation & Trial Practice Group and Consumer Protection/FTC Team in Washington, D.C. Sandy joins the firm following her significant tenure of thirteen years as Assistant Director in the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, Division of Financial Practices, where she helped shape investigations and enforcement strategy involving consumer financial products, fintech, payments, alternative lending, and emerging technologies.

The FTC has jurisdiction over non-bank entities and enforces numerous consumer protection laws that directly impact the financial services sector, including the FTC Act, GLB Act, FCRA, TILA, FDCPA, EFTA, CROA, ROSCA, and TSR. Drawing on more than two decades at the agency, Sandy brings valuable insight into the FTC’s policy, enforcement, and regulatory approaches, including on matters involving fintech, payment platforms, digital assets, and emerging technology-driven business models.

Her arrival further strengthens the firm’s ability to help financial services clients navigate an increasingly complex landscape of investigations, enforcement actions, regulatory compliance challenges, and emerging risks.

Illinois Enacts Comprehensive Buy-Now-Pay-Later Law: Implications for Licensing, Bank Partnerships, and Program Structure

What Happened?

On June 25, 2026, Illinois enacted Senate Bill 3561, which establishes the Buy-Now-Pay-Later Loan Consumer Protection Act. The measure creates a new state-level licensing and regulatory framework governing certain buy-now-pay-later (“BNPL”) products offered to Illinois consumers.

The Act applies to closed-end consumer credit products offered in connection with a specific purchase of goods or services where the credit is either (i) payable in four or fewer installments or (ii) has a term of 120 days or less. The definition expressly includes both interest-free “pay-in-four” products and BNPL products that carry interest or finance charges.

With this legislation, Illinois joins a growing number of states seeking to impose a tailored regulatory framework on BNPL products. The law is effective immediately, although it includes a transitional compliance period for existing market participants.

Overview of the Act

At a high level, the Act:

  • Requires licensure for persons engaged in the business of offering BNPL loans in the state
  • Establishes a regulatory regime administered by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation
  • Imposes consumer protection, underwriting, reporting, and examination requirements
  • Applies broadly to a wide range of market participants involved in BNPL programs
  • Provides that violations constitute an unlawful practice under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act

The Act also provides that BNPL loans made in compliance with its requirements are not subject to certain existing Illinois lending statutes, including the Consumer Installment Loan Act and the Payday Loan Reform Act.

Scope of Coverage: Broad and Functional

A defining feature of the Illinois law is its expansive approach to coverage. The Act applies not only to entities that directly originate BNPL loans, but also to persons that:

  • Arrange or broker loans
  • Acquire or hold whole or partial interests in loans
  • Act as agents or service providers in connection with BNPL programs

In addition, the Act includes anti-evasion language intended to capture transactions that are “in substance” loans or structured to avoid application of the statute.

This framing reflects a broader trend in state legislation focusing on functional activity and economic substance, rather than formal labels or contractual roles.

Merchant and Passive Investor Carve-Outs

The Act includes several notable exceptions:

  • Merchant platform exception: A merchant or platform is not covered solely by offering BNPL options to consumers, provided it does not originate, underwrite, service, or hold an ownership interest in the underlying loans.
  • Passive investor exception: Persons holding a partial interest in a BNPL loan as a passive investor are excluded, so long as they do not control origination or servicing functions.

These carve-outs are consistent with approaches seen in other recent legislation, but their practical scope will depend on how regulators interpret concepts such as “control” and “participation” in the lending program.

Bank Partnership and “True Lender” Considerations

Although the Act exempts banks, credit unions, and certain other depository institutions, it does not automatically exempt nonbank participants in bank-partner BNPL programs.

Instead, the statute’s broad applicability provisions—combined with its anti-evasion framework—suggest that Illinois regulators may evaluate BNPL programs based on economic interest and operational control, rather than the nominal identity of the originating lender.

As a result, fintech companies and other nonbank program participants should consider how their roles—particularly in marketing, underwriting, funding arrangements, and servicing—may be viewed under the Act.

Underwriting and Consumer Protections

The Act introduces a set of consumer protection requirements that align BNPL products more closely with traditional consumer lending obligations.

Among other things, the law:

  • Requires disclosure of loan terms, costs, and repayment structure
  • Mandates processes for handling consumer disputes and refunds
  • Imposes an expectation that lenders assess a borrower’s ability to repay prior to extending credit

While the statute does not prescribe a specific underwriting formula, it signals a shift toward ability-to-repay–type standards in the BNPL context.

Transition Period and Implementation Timeline

The Act provides a transition pathway for existing BNPL providers.

Specifically, a person that was offering BNPL products in Illinois prior to January 1, 2028, and submits a license application by that date, may continue operating while the application is pending.

Key Takeaways

The Illinois BNPL Act raises several important considerations for market participants:

  1. Licensing analysis will be broader than traditional lender-focused regimes. Entities involved in program structure, marketing, servicing, or funding should assess whether they fall within scope.
  2. Form will not control over substance. The Act’s anti-evasion provisions suggest regulators will look beyond contractual labels to determine who is effectively acting as the lender.
  3. Bank partnership structures may be subject to scrutiny. Nonbank participants should evaluate their role in underwriting, economic exposure, and program governance.
  4. Merchant and investor carve-outs are helpful—but limited. These exclusions depend heavily on the absence of operational control or program-level influence.
  5. Compliance will extend beyond licensing. The Act introduces substantive obligations around disclosures, underwriting, dispute resolution, and regulatory oversight.

Looking Ahead

Illinois’s enactment of a comprehensive BNPL framework reflects an accelerating trend toward state-level regulation of point-of-sale financing products.

As additional states consider similar legislation, market participants should expect continued divergence in regulatory requirements—and a growing need to align program structures with evolving expectations around licensing, consumer protection, and risk management.

President’s Working Group Declares a New Era for Digital Assets

What Happened?

On July 30, 2025, the President’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets released a comprehensive Digital Assets Report, outlining a national strategy for cryptocurrency and blockchain. Declaring a departure from the prior Administration’s approach, the report recommends that regulators adopt pro-innovation rules toward digital assets and blockchain technology. It addresses market structure, banking, payments, stablecoins, taxation, and anti-money-laundering (AML) measures.

The Working Group was established in the President’s January Executive Order, Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology, which declared support for the responsible growth and use of digital assets, blockchain technologies, and related technologies across all sectors of the economy.

Why Is It Important?

The report marks a significant shift in U.S. policy, and it is designed to position the United States as a global leader in digital finance. It outlines lawful digital asset use, including self-custody rights, and promotes U.S. dollar-pegged stablecoins to strengthen dollar dominance globally (while rejecting a U.S. central bank digital currency). The recommended framework includes tools that include safe harbors, innovation exemptions, and updated tax and banking rules.

On July 31, 2025, SEC Chair Paul Atkins amplified the report’s significance in a speech, American Leadership in the Digital Finance Revolution, calling it a “blueprint to make America first in blockchain and crypto technology.” He characterized the potential of digital asset technology as a new area in the history of financial markets and said that regulatory clarity could unleash unprecedented capital formation and consumer choice.

What To Do Now?

The regulatory tide has clearly shifted for companies who wish to explore or engage in the digital asset ecosystem. As always, sound compliance and governance structures will be key as regulatory expectations evolve. Additionally, engaging with regulators and industry groups to craft safe harbors and sandbox programs will be crucial to ensure alignment with evolving regulatory approaches for AML, banking, tax, and digital identity standards.

Financial Services / Investment Funds Advisory | FinCEN Delays Enforcement of Investment Adviser AML/CFT Rule

Executive Summary
2 Minute Read

Our Financial Services and Investment Funds Teams examine the delay by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) of the effective date for the Anti-Money Laundering/Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) program requirements by two years.

  • The postponement aims to ease compliance costs, reduce uncertainty, and allow for further review of the rule
  • The rule would have included investment advisers in the list of “financial institutions” under the Bank Secrecy Act and required them to implement comprehensive AML/CFT programs
  • FinCEN will provide interim exemptive relief while reviewing the rule’s substance

_________________________________________

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has postponed the effective date of its final rule establishing the Anti-Money Laundering/Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) Program and Suspicious Activity Report Filing Requirements for Registered Investment Advisers and Exempt Reporting Advisers Rule. The effective date, previously set for January 1, 2026, is now anticipated to be January 1, 2028.

The so-called “IA AML Rule” would have brought certain investment advisers within the definition of “financial institution” under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and imposed comprehensive AML/CFT program obligations. FinCEN cited several reasons for the deferral, including:

  • Easing potential compliance costs for the industry.
  • Reducing regulatory uncertainty.
  • Allowing FinCEN to undertake a broader review of the rule’s substance and scope.
  • Ensuring the rule is “effectively tailored to the diverse business models and risk profiles” within the investment adviser sector.

FinCEN also indicated its intent to collaborate with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to revisit the previously proposed rule on customer identification program (CIP) requirements for investment advisers.

What This Means for Advisers

While this postponement provides a two-year reprieve from the compliance obligations of the IA AML Rule, it’s important to understand what these obligations would have entailed. Had the rule become effective in 2026, advisers would generally have been required to:

  • Develop and implement a written, risk-based AML/CFT program.
  • Designate an AML compliance officer.
  • Conduct ongoing training for relevant personnel.
  • Perform independent testing of their AML programs.
  • File suspicious activity reports with FinCEN about suspicious transactions.
  • If the associated CIP rule were finalized, implement customer identification and verification procedures for their clients.

FinCEN intends to revisit the rule’s substance through a future rulemaking process and will provide interim exemptive relief to formally delay the effective date. Firms should continue to monitor FinCEN and SEC announcements for further developments on these AML/CFT and CIP requirements.

_____________________________________________

Originally published July 28, 2025.

If you have any questions, or would like additional information, please contact one of the attorneys on our Financial Services team or one of the attorneys on our Investment Funds team.

You can subscribe to future advisories and other Alston & Bird publications by completing our publications subscription form.

FHFA Director Directs Fannie and Freddie to Consider Crypto Assets to Qualify for Mortgages

What Happened?

On June 26, Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) Director William Pulte told Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the “government sponsored entities”) to draft policies that would consider a borrower’s cryptocurrency holdings as reserves or assets when qualifying for a mortgage, without requiring borrowers to convert those holdings into U.S. dollars, and cryptocurrencies under consideration would be those stored on a U.S.-regulated exchange.

Why It’s Important

Currently, cryptocurrency that has not been converted to U.S. currency cannot be considered when evaluating a borrower’s qualifications for a mortgage backed by the government sponsored entities. The Trump administration has expressed interest in bolstering and further legitimizing cryptocurrency in the U.S. financial system. Incorporating crypto assets into the housing industry would inextricably link crypto, a less established financial tool, to one of the most stable asset classes in America.

What To Do Next?

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are directed to develop proposals “as soon as reasonably practical.” Parties with an interest in housing finance should stay up to date with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac announcements to see when proposals are published.