The law is not static. It is shaped by the cases that come before the courts. In the MCA space, several landmark decisions have reshaped the legal landscape, creating precedents that every business owner with MCA debt should understand.

MCA case law is developing rapidly. Courts across the country — primarily in New York, but increasingly in other states and federal courts — are examining the fundamental question at the heart of every MCA dispute: is the transaction a purchase of future receivables or a loan? The answer to that question determines whether the agreement is regulated, whether usury laws apply, and whether the obligation is enforceable. Several cases have become landmarks in this evolving legal landscape.

The Recharacterization Decisions

Multiple New York courts have ruled that MCA agreements lacking genuine risk transfer are loans, not purchases. The analysis examines whether the funder bore real risk of loss. When the court finds that fixed daily payments, personal guarantees, confessions of judgment, and non-functional reconciliation clauses eliminated the funder’s downside exposure, the court concludes that the funder was not purchasing receivables. The funder was making a loan. And the loan’s effective interest rate, when calculated, exceeds the criminal usury threshold.

These decisions are significant because they established the analytical framework that other courts now follow. The framework is straightforward: examine the contract, assess the risk, calculate the rate, apply the usury statute. Courts that follow this framework consistently reach the same conclusion — MCAs with no genuine risk transfer are loans, and loans with effective rates exceeding 25% in New York are criminally usurious and void.

Confession of Judgment Reforms

The judicial and legislative response to MCA confessions of judgment has been equally significant. Investigative reporting documented how MCA funders used confessions of judgment to freeze bank accounts, seize assets, and destroy businesses without any judicial process. The reporting led to legislative reforms in New York in 2019, which imposed new requirements on confession of judgment filings and restricted their use against out-of-state defendants.

Court decisions following the reforms have vacated confessions of judgment that failed to comply with the new requirements, providing precedent for future challenges. These decisions established that the procedural protections enacted by the legislature are enforceable and that confessions failing to meet the new standards will be set aside.

State AG Actions

State attorney general enforcement actions against MCA companies have produced consent decrees, restitution orders, and judicial findings that characterize specific MCA practices as deceptive, unfair, or illegal. These findings are not binding precedent in private litigation, but they are persuasive authority that courts and arbitrators consider when evaluating similar claims by individual borrowers.

Why These Decisions Matter to You

Every court decision that recharacterizes an MCA as a usurious loan strengthens the legal position of every borrower with a similar agreement. Every vacated confession of judgment establishes the procedural framework for the next vacatur motion. Every AG enforcement action documents the industry practices that individual borrowers can challenge. The legal landscape is moving in the borrower’s favor. The question for any individual borrower is whether their specific agreement, with its specific terms and the funder’s specific conduct, falls within the framework these decisions have established.

An attorney who practices MCA law stays current with these decisions and uses them to evaluate your agreement, frame your claims, and present your case. The case law is the map. The attorney is the guide. The destination is the resolution of your obligation on terms that the law supports.

DEFENSE TEAM SPOTLIGHT

Todd Spodek

Lead Attorney & Founder

Featured on Netflix's "Inventing Anna," Todd Spodek brings decades of high-stakes criminal defense experience. His aggressive approach has secured dismissals and acquittals in cases others deemed unwinnable.

NY Bar Admitted
Multi-State Licensed
Federal Courts

Meet the Full Team

The case law is also developing in areas beyond recharacterization and confessions of judgment. Courts are examining the enforceability of MCA arbitration clauses, the scope of personal guarantees in void agreements, the funder’s obligation to reconcile payments, and the broker’s liability for deceptive sales practices. Each of these areas is producing decisions that expand the legal tools available to MCA borrowers.

The pace of legal development is accelerating. More attorneys are entering the MCA practice area. More cases are being filed. More decisions are being published. More legal theories are being tested. The body of case law that existed five years ago was thin. The body of case law today is substantial and growing. The business owner who challenges an MCA agreement in 2026 does so with significantly more legal support than the business owner who tried in 2020. The trajectory favors the borrower, and the trajectory is accelerating.

For the individual business owner, the practical takeaway from the evolving case law is that legal challenges to MCA agreements are more viable today than at any point in the industry’s history. The legal theories are tested. The analytical frameworks are established. The precedents are published. The attorney who evaluates your agreement does so against a body of law that increasingly favors the borrower. The question is not whether the legal tools exist. The question is whether they apply to your specific agreement, with its specific terms and the funder’s specific conduct. That question can only be answered through an individualized legal analysis.

For more on this topic, see Is Your MCA Actually a Loan? Why the Legal Distinction Matters.