The CFPB’s rule does not regulate MCA pricing. It does not cap rates. It does not ban confessions of judgment. What it does is far more fundamental: it creates visibility into a market that has operated in the dark for two decades.

Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act directed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to collect data on lending to small businesses, including women-owned and minority-owned businesses. The CFPB’s final rule implementing Section 1071, issued in 2023, requires covered financial institutions to collect and report data on applications for credit from small businesses. The rule’s definition of “credit” includes merchant cash advances, bringing the MCA industry within the CFPB’s data collection framework for the first time.

What the Rule Requires

Covered institutions must collect data on each application for small business credit, including the type of product, the amount requested, the amount approved, the pricing terms, the action taken, and demographic information about the business owner. The data is reported to the CFPB and will be made publicly available in a manner that protects individual privacy.

For MCA companies, the rule means that for the first time, their origination volume, approval rates, pricing practices, and the demographic profile of their borrowers will be visible to regulators, researchers, advocates, and the public. The opacity that has characterized the MCA industry — the absence of reliable data on market size, pricing, default rates, and borrower outcomes — will be replaced by a comprehensive dataset that allows meaningful analysis and accountability.

Why Data Matters

Data is the prerequisite for effective regulation. Without data, regulators cannot identify patterns of discrimination, assess whether pricing is predatory, measure default rates, or evaluate the industry’s impact on small business communities. With data, all of these analyses become possible. The CFPB’s dataset will allow researchers to compare MCA pricing to the pricing of alternative products, identify geographic and demographic disparities in access and cost, and measure the correlation between MCA originations and business outcomes.

The data will also support individual borrowers. When a business owner challenges an MCA agreement, the CFPB data may provide context — how the pricing on their advance compares to the market, whether the funder’s pricing practices disproportionately affect certain communities, and whether the funder’s approval patterns suggest discriminatory or predatory targeting.

The Rule’s Limitations

The Section 1071 rule does not regulate MCA pricing, terms, or practices. It does not cap rates. It does not require reconciliation. It does not ban confessions of judgment. It is a data collection and reporting requirement, not a substantive regulation. The rule creates visibility. What regulators and legislators do with that visibility is the next chapter.

The rule’s implementation has also faced legal challenges that have delayed its effective date. The timeline for full implementation remains uncertain. But the direction is clear: the era of MCA opacity is ending. The data will exist. The analysis will follow. The regulation that the analysis supports will come. The only question is timing.

For the individual business owner, the rule’s most immediate significance is as a signal of the regulatory trajectory. The federal government has determined that the MCA market is significant enough to warrant data collection and oversight. That determination supports every individual legal challenge, every state regulatory action, and every judicial finding that MCA practices are subject to scrutiny. The rule does not regulate MCAs directly. It legitimizes the scrutiny that will.

The rule’s practical impact on the MCA industry will depend on implementation, enforcement, and the political environment. Challenges to the rule and changes in CFPB leadership could delay or weaken implementation. But the direction established by the rule — that the MCA market is within the scope of federal financial oversight, that data collection is appropriate, and that transparency serves the public interest — is a direction that subsequent administrations and regulators are unlikely to reverse entirely.

For the individual business owner, the CFPB rule is one more indication that the regulatory landscape is shifting. The MCA industry’s era of operating without federal oversight is ending. The data that the rule will generate will inform future regulation, future enforcement, and future legal challenges. The business owner who challenges an MCA agreement today is part of a broader movement toward accountability and transparency in the small business financing market.

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 rule also has implications for MCA funders’ internal practices. The requirement to collect and report data on applications, approvals, denials, and pricing creates an incentive for funders to ensure their practices can withstand regulatory scrutiny. A funder whose data reveals approval rates, pricing patterns, or demographic disparities that suggest discriminatory or predatory targeting will face regulatory attention. The mere act of collecting and reporting data may influence the funder’s behavior, even before any enforcement action is taken. Transparency changes incentives, and changed incentives change practices.

For more on this topic, see When MCA Contracts Violate State Usury Laws.

For more on this topic, see Why Banks Failing Small Businesses Created the MCA Problem.