[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 238 (Thursday, December 10, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 79404-79408]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26664]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION

12 CFR Part 1026


Truth in Lending (Regulation Z); Earned Wage Access Programs

AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

ACTION: Advisory opinion.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is 
issuing this advisory opinion to resolve regulatory uncertainty 
regarding the applicability of the definition of credit under 
Regulation Z, which implements the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), to 
certain earned wage access (EWA) programs that conform to the summary 
of material facts provided in part I.B of this advisory opinion.

DATES: This advisory opinion is effective on December 10, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Blatnik, Acting Assistant 
Director; Will Wade-Gery, Senior Advisor; or Nathalie Prescott, 
Attorney; Office of Innovation, at [email protected] or 202-
435-7000. If you require this document in an alternative electronic 
format, please contact [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Bureau is issuing this advisory opinion 
through the procedures for its Advisory Opinions Policy.\1\ Refer to 
those procedures for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Bureau of Consumer Fin. Prot., Advisory Opinions Policy 
(Nov. 2020), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_advisory-opinion_policy_2020-11.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Advisory Opinion

A. Background

    According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, nearly two-thirds of 
U.S. private businesses use biweekly, semimonthly, or monthly pay 
periods.\2\ The Bureau understands that the interval of time between 
hours worked and receiving a paycheck can contribute to employees' 
financial distress, particularly for new hires when the length of time 
between the first day of employment and the first paycheck may be 
longer than subsequent paycheck intervals, depending on where the hire 
date falls in a pay cycle. A study by the Financial Health Network 
found that 38 percent of respondents cited timing mismatches between 
income and expenses as a reason for using short-term, small-dollar 
credit.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, Length of Pay Periods in the 
Current Employment Statistics Survey (last modified Aug. 29, 2019), 
https://www.bls.gov/ces/publications/length-pay-period.htm.
    \3\ Rob Levy & Joshua Sledge, Ctr. for Fin. Serv. Innovation, A 
Complex Portrait: An Examination of Small-Dollar Credit Consumers, 
at 6 (2012), https://s3.amazonaws.com/cfsi-innovation-files/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/31163518/A-Complex-Portrait-An-Examination-of-Small-Dollar-Credit-Consumers.pdf. (Center for Financial Services 
Innovation became the Financial Health Network in 2019, check the 
Fin. Health Network's about page, https://finhealthnetwork.org/about/ (last visited Nov. 16, 2020).)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 79405]]

    Despite advancements in payment technologies over the past several 
decades, several obstacles prevent businesses from easily implementing 
shorter pay cycles. For instance, there may be cash flow limitations on 
businesses that depend on incoming payments and receivables, which 
subsequently need to be processed and deposited.\4\ The Bureau has 
noted that periodic wage payment ``appears to be largely driven by 
efficiency concerns with payroll processing and employers' cash 
management.'' \5\ Employers may also face a lack of technical ability 
and regulatory uncertainty about State wage and hour laws as 
contributing factors.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Jose Pagliery, Why do we get paid every two weeks 
instead of daily?, CNN Bus. (Feb. 10, 2016), http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/10/technology/daily-paychecks/index.html; see also Julian 
Alcazar & Terri Bradford, In the Nick of Time: The Rise of Earned 
Wage Access, Fed. Reserve Bank of Kan. City, at 4 (Sept. 2020), 
https://www.kansascityfed.org/publications/research/rwp/psrb/articles/2020/rise-earned-wage-access (``Payroll providers often 
cite costs, both financial and time, as the reason they are unable 
to pay employees more frequently.'').
    \5\ See 82 FR 54472, 54547 (Nov. 17, 2017).
    \6\ See David S. Mitchell, The Aspen Inst., Payroll Innovation: 
How Smarter, Faster Paychecks Could Mitigate Volatility, at 5-6 (May 
2017) (``When employers--as well as workers themselves--decide they 
want to access their pay earlier and faster, they must turn to the 
technical experts--financial service and payroll providers--to 
operationalize the new policy.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Earned wage access products have recently emerged in the 
marketplace as an innovative way for employees to meet short-term 
liquidity needs that arise between paychecks without turning to more 
costly alternatives like traditional payday loans. EWA products seek to 
address the lag between consumers' hours worked and receipt of their 
paychecks by facilitating advance access to earned but as yet unpaid 
wages. EWA providers are developing programs with a variety of business 
models and fee structures. Typically, these programs involve an EWA 
provider enabling employees to request a certain amount (or share) of 
accrued wages, disbursing the requested amounts to the employees prior 
to payday, and later recouping the funds through payroll deductions or 
bank account debits on the subsequent payday.
    The Bureau understands that there is uncertainty about the 
application of Regulation Z to EWA programs. Specifically, the Bureau 
has been asked whether EWA providers are offering or extending 
``credit'' within the scope of the regulation.\7\ The Bureau itself has 
acknowledged that there is uncertainty concerning the conditions under 
which EWA programs involve an offer of ``credit'' under Regulation 
Z.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 12 CFR 1026.2(a)(14).
    \8\ 82 FR 54472, 54547 (Nov. 17, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 30, 2020, the Bureau issued its Advisory Opinions 
Policy, the primary purpose of which ``is to provide a formal mechanism 
through which the Bureau may more effectively carry out its statutory 
purposes and objectives by better enabling compliance in the face of 
regulatory uncertainty.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Bureau of Consumer Fin. Prot., Advisory Opinions Policy 
(Nov. 2020), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_advisory-opinion_policy_2020-11.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Bureau is issuing this advisory opinion under the Advisory 
Opinion Policy to resolve regulatory uncertainty regarding the 
application of Regulation Z to the particular type of EWA program 
described in the Summary of Material Facts in part I.B below (Covered 
EWA Program). Specifically, this advisory opinion clarifies that a 
Covered EWA Program does not involve the offering or extension of 
``credit'' as defined by section 1026.2(a)(14) of Regulation Z.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The definition of ``credit'' in TILA is virtually identical 
to Regulation Z's definition of the term. See 15 U.S.C. 1602(f). 
Although this advisory opinion focuses on Regulation Z and concludes 
that its definition of ``credit'' does not apply to Covered EWA 
Programs, for similar reasons the Bureau clarifies that the same 
analysis applies to TILA's definition of ``credit'' and thus that 
Covered EWA Programs do not involve the offering or extension of 
``credit'' under TILA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Summary of Material Facts

    For purposes of this advisory opinion, the term ``Covered EWA 
Program'' means an EWA program that includes all of the following 
characteristics: \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This advisory opinion is limited in its application to 
Covered EWA Programs. It has no application to EWA programs that are 
not Covered EWA Programs as described in this part I.B. As a result, 
products that meet some but not all of the characteristics may be 
credit under Regulation Z.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) The provider of the Covered EWA Program (Provider) contracts 
with employers to offer and provide Covered EWA Transactions \12\ to 
the employer's employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The term ``Covered EWA Transaction'' means the transactions 
between a Provider and an employee that are associated with a 
Covered EWA Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) The amount of each Covered EWA Transaction does not exceed the 
accrued cash value of the wages the employee has earned up to the date 
and time of the transaction, which amount is determined based upon 
timely information provided by the employer to the Provider. The 
Provider may not rely upon information provided by the employee, or on 
estimates or predictions of hours worked or hourly wage rates. The 
``accrued cash value of the wages'' are wages that the employee is 
entitled to receive under State law in the event of separation from the 
employer for work performed for the employer, but for which the 
employee has yet to be paid.
    (3) The employee makes no payment, voluntary or otherwise, to 
access EWA funds or otherwise use the Covered EWA Program, and the 
Provider or its agents do not solicit or accept tips or any other 
payments from the employee. (The Bureau notes that there may be EWA 
programs that charge nominal processing fees--and thus differ from the 
fee structure described in this section B(3)--that nonetheless do not 
involve the offering or extension of ``credit'' as defined in Sec.  
1026.2(a)(14). Such programs are not covered by this advisory opinion, 
but providers of such programs may request clarification from the 
Bureau about a specific fee structure by, for instance, applying for an 
Approval under the Policy on the Compliance Assistance Sandbox).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 84 FR 48246 (Sept. 13, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To conform to this characteristic, the Provider must provide EWA 
funds to an account of the employee's choice, and the Provider cannot 
charge fees for the delivery of EWA funds to that account. If the 
employee chooses a prepaid account as defined under Regulation E \14\ 
and that account is managed, issued, or otherwise facilitated by the 
Provider (Provider Account), the Provider cannot charge fees for 
opening that Provider Account. In addition, the Provider Account must 
allow the employee reasonable use of that account at no charge. In this 
context, ``reasonable use'' means, inter alia, that any prepaid card 
associated with the Provider Account must be issued on a major network 
brand that permits use at multiple, unaffiliated merchants; the 
Provider Account must not charge fees for use of an associated card to 
buy goods or services at merchants that accept the associated card; the 
Provider Account must not impose any periodic fees; and the employee 
must have some free and reasonably accessible means to obtain cash from 
the Provider Account.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 12 CFR 1005.2(b)(3).
    \15\ The Provider Account may charge the employee, at cost, for 
non-standard uses of the Provider Account or associated card, such 
as foreign ATM use, card replacement, check provision, or directing 
ACH payments from the Provider Account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) The Provider recovers the amount of each Covered EWA 
Transaction only through an employer-facilitated payroll deduction from 
the employee's next paycheck.\16\ One additional payroll

[[Page 79406]]

deduction may be attempted in the event of a failed or partial payroll 
deduction due to administrative or technical errors. Administrative or 
technical errors include, for instance, an application programming 
interface (API) malfunction or a mistake in the employer's payroll 
process (e.g., miscalculation of an employee's base pay or overtime 
award), but do not include, for instance, situations in which the 
employer has garnished an employee's wages following a Covered EWA 
Transaction.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ EWA programs where a provider obtains any authorization to 
transfer funds from a consumer's account, including both electronic 
payment authorizations and checks and including authorizations that 
the provider may not actually utilize, do not meet the requirements 
of this section B(4).
    \17\ For example, a Covered EWA Transaction may occur in week 
one of an employee's pay cycle, but the employer learns of and 
subjects the employee's paycheck to a required wage garnishment in 
week two of the pay cycle. As a result of the garnishment, the 
employee's paycheck is less than the amount of the Covered EWA 
Transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) In the event of a failed or partial payroll deduction, the 
Provider retains no legal or contractual claim or remedy, direct or 
indirect, against the employee, although the Provider may choose to 
refrain from offering the employee additional EWA transactions.
    (6) Before entering into a Covered EWA Transaction, the Provider 
clearly and conspicuously explains to the employee, and warrants to the 
employee as part of the contract between the parties (and ultimately 
complies with these warranties) that it:
    (a) Will not require the employee to pay any charges or fees in 
connection with the Covered EWA Transaction;
    (b) Has no legal or contractual claim or remedy, direct or 
indirect, against the employee in the event the payroll deduction is 
insufficient to cover the full amount of a Covered EWA Transaction, 
including no right to take payment from any consumer account; and
    (c) Will not engage in any debt collection activities related to a 
Covered EWA Transaction, place a Covered EWA Transaction amount as a 
debt with or sell it to a third party, or report to a consumer 
reporting agency concerning a Covered EWA Transaction.
    (7) The Provider will not directly or indirectly assess the credit 
risk of individual employees, including through obtaining and reviewing 
credit reports or credit scores about the individual employees.

C. Legal Analysis

    Regulation Z applies to any non-exempt \18\ individual or business 
that offers or extends credit when four conditions are met: (i) The 
credit is offered or extended to consumers; (ii) the offering or 
extension of credit is done regularly; (iii) the credit is subject to a 
finance charge or is payable by a written agreement in more than four 
installments; and (iv) the credit is primarily for personal, family, or 
household purposes.\19\ Section 1026.2(a)(14) of Regulation Z defines 
``credit'' as ``the right to defer payment of debt or to incur debt and 
defer its payment.'' \20\ Neither Regulation Z nor TILA define the term 
``debt.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Bureau's Regulation Z does not apply to ``a person 
excluded from coverage of this part by section 1029 of the Consumer 
Financial Protection Act of 2010, title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall 
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203, 124 
Stat. 1376.'' 12 CFR 1026.1(c)(1).
    \19\ 12 CFR 1026.1(c)(1).
    \20\ 12 CFR 1026.2(a)(14). TILA defines ``credit'' as ``the 
right granted by a creditor to a debtor to defer payment of debt or 
to incur debt and defer its payment.'' 15 U.S.C. 1602(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is unclear whether the term ``credit'' in section 1026.2(a)(14) 
of Regulation Z includes Covered EWA Transactions.\21\ For the reasons 
set forth below, the Bureau concludes that Covered EWA Transactions are 
not ``credit'' for purposes of Sec.  1026.2(a)(14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 
recognized that, ``while the concept of credit is central to Truth 
in Lending, the regulatory definition may be difficult to apply in 
particular fact situations . . . [A] precise, easy-to-apply standard 
cannot be devised to resolve all questions.'' 45 FR 80648, 80652 
(Dec. 5, 1980) (proposing revisions of Regulation Z); see also 46 FR 
20848, 20851 (Apr. 7, 1981) (adopting the definition from the 
December proposal and noting that ``[t]he regulatory definition may 
be difficult to apply in particular fact situations'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Bureau concludes that Covered EWA Transactions do not 
provide employees with ``the right to defer payment of debt or to incur 
debt and defer its payment'' because Covered EWA Programs do not 
implicate a ``debt.'' \22\ Regulation Z does not define ``debt.'' The 
common meaning of the term debt is a ``[l]iability on a claim; a 
specific sum of money due by agreement or otherwise.'' \23\ But the 
Bureau has determined that no such liability of the employee arises in 
the context of a Covered EWA Program. Rather, the Bureau believes that 
a Covered EWA Program facilitates employees' access to wages they have 
already earned, and to which they are already entitled, and thus 
functionally operates like an employer that pays its employees earlier 
than the scheduled payday.\24\ For instance, a Provider must have 
knowledge, from timely information the Provider receives from the 
employer, of the accrued cash value of an employee's wages at the date 
and time of the Covered EWA Transaction. The Covered EWA Transaction 
cannot be more than this amount, which reduces the risk that EWA funds 
do not correspond to funds the employee has actually earned and is 
entitled to receive on payday. Further, a Provider can recover EWA 
funds, directly or indirectly, only through an employer-facilitated 
payroll deduction that occurs on the next scheduled payday,\25\ which 
corresponds to the pay period when the employee actually earned the 
funds related to the Covered EWA Transaction.\26\ In addition, EWA 
funds are transferred to an employee's chosen account at no cost to the 
employee, just as receiving a paycheck costs employees nothing. And the 
only eligibility criterion for an employee to participate in a Covered 
EWA Program is whether the partner employer gives the employee access 
to the program; the Provider does not directly or indirectly assess an 
employee's credit risk for a Covered EWA Transaction, just as 
underwriting is not used to issue a paycheck.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 12 CFR 1026.2(a)(14).
    \23\ Debt, Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019).
    \24\ This often occurs in the employer-employee context, for 
instance, when an individual whose employment has been terminated 
receives her final paycheck via paper check on her last day at work, 
which may not be the same day as a scheduled payday.
    \25\ Cf. 12 CFR part 1026, supp. I, comment 2(a)(14)-2 (``Credit 
includes a transaction in which a cash advance is made to a consumer 
in exchange for the consumer's personal check, or in exchange for 
the consumer's authorization to debit the consumer's deposit 
account, and where the parties agree either that the check will not 
be cashed or deposited, or that the consumer's deposit account will 
not be debited, until a designated future date.'').
    \26\ Payroll deductions may not be attempted in any other pay 
period in the event the paycheck corresponding to the Covered EWA 
Transaction is insufficient to cover the full amount of the 
transaction. However, in the event of a technical or administrative 
error, one additional payroll deduction may be attempted on the 
following payday.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, interpreting Sec.  1026.2(a)(14) not to apply to Covered 
EWA Transactions is consistent with comment 2(a)(14)-1.v to Regulation 
Z. This comment provides ``[b]orrowing against the accrued cash value 
of an insurance policy or a pension account if there is no independent 
obligation to repay'' is ``not considered credit for purposes of the 
regulation.'' \27\ As the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System explained when it revised Regulation Z to implement the Truth in 
Lending Simplification and Reform Act, in such instances, ``credit has 
not been extended because the consumer is, in effect, only using the 
consumer's own money.'' \28\ The Bureau

[[Page 79407]]

believes there are significant similarities between comment 2(a)(14)-
1.v and a Covered EWA Program. For instance, like the accrued cash 
value of a consumer's insurance policy or pension account, the accrued 
cash value of an employee's earned but unpaid wages is the employee's 
own money. That is, an employee is ``in effect, only using the 
[employee's] own money'' when she accesses earned wages through a 
Covered EWA Program, and is not incurring debt or deferring its 
payment. Moreover, ``there is no independent obligation to repay'' a 
Covered EWA Transaction, since the Provider may only recover the 
corresponding EWA amounts via the allowed employer-facilitated payroll 
deduction (or in the event of an administrative or technical error, one 
additional employer-facilitated payroll deduction) and has no claim 
direct or indirect against an employee for nonpayment in the event of a 
failed or partial deduction.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 12 CFR part 1026, supp. I, comment 2(a)(14)-1.
    \28\ 46 FR 20848, 20851 (Apr. 7, 1981) (``The regulatory 
definition [of `credit'] may be difficult to apply in particular 
fact situations, and the Board therefore offers the following 
guidance, which will also be incorporated into the commentary.''); 
see also 46 FR 28560, 28560 (May 27, 1981) (proposing official 
Regulation Z commentary) (``The commentary does not purport to be 
exhaustive. It concentrates on material of general application whose 
inclusion will, in the staff's view, be useful to the widest 
possible audience . . . [T]he commentary will address prevalent 
credit transactions, to the extent that they present important 
questions under the regulation. It will not, however, attempt to 
address each credit plan's unique set of facts. The commentary 
instead identifies several basic factors characterizing that type of 
transaction. Creditors must then determine whether the discussion 
applies to their own transactions given their particular 
variations.''); 46 FR 50288, 50288 (Oct. 9, 1981) (adopting official 
Regulation Z commentary) (``The commentary modifies the staff's 
approach to providing interpretations of Regulation Z. Under the 
previous regulation, individual staff opinions were issued in 
response to inquiries about specific fact situations and were 
normally limited to those facts. Over time, more than 1,500 separate 
opinions were issued. While this commentary provides specific 
guidance and examples, it employs language of somewhat more general 
application for use by the widest possible audience.'').
    \29\ This could happen, for instance, if an employee's wages 
become subject to garnishment or an employer goes out of business 
after an EWA transaction but before the scheduled payday.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the totality of circumstances of a Covered EWA Program 
supports that these programs differ in kind from products the Bureau 
would generally consider to be credit. Courts tend to agree that a 
transaction's substance, not its form, controls whether it qualifies as 
TILA ``credit,'' and they generally undertake fact-specific inquiries 
and weigh multiple factors when analyzing the true nature of a 
transaction.\30\ The Bureau notes that features often found in credit 
transactions are absent from Covered EWA Programs. Unlike many credit 
transactions, for instance:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Meyers v. Clearview Dodge Sales, Inc., 384 F. Supp. 
722, 728 (E.D. La. 1974), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 539 F.2d 511 
(5th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 929 (1977) (``In construing 
a piece of remedial legislation such as the Truth-in-Lending Act, 
designed to protect consumers, courts must focus on the substance of 
a transaction rather than its mere form.''); see also Edwards v. 
Your Credit, Inc., 148 F.3d 427, 436 (5th Cir. 1998) (applying 
substance-over-form analysis to TILA claim); Arrington v. Colleen, 
Inc., No. Civ. AMD 00-191, 2001 WL 34117735, at *4 (D. Md. Mar. 29, 
2001) (``A common task of courts is to determine whether particular 
conduct or transaction falls into a class of conduct or transactions 
that a statute regulates. Such is particularly the case here, where 
the TILA regulates the extension of credit in various forms and in 
fact anticipates that the form of credit will be ever-changing.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Providers have no rights against the employee in the event 
of nonpayment. As explained above, a Provider must warrant to employees 
that it has no contractual claim or remedy, direct or indirect, against 
them in the event a payroll deduction is insufficient to cover amounts 
corresponding to a Covered EWA Transaction. A Provider also must 
warrant that it will not, with regard to any such transaction, engage 
in debt collection activities, report to consumer reporting agencies, 
or sell or place the transaction as a debt with any third party. 
Employees have no obligation to make any payments directly or 
indirectly to a Provider at any time. This is true even if, for 
instance, an employer goes bankrupt before attempting a payroll 
deduction.
     Providers do not charge employees to participate in a 
Covered EWA Program, open a Provider Account, transfer EWA funds to the 
Provider Account (or to the employee's choice of account), or use an 
associated card issued on a major network to buy goods or services at 
the multiple merchants that accept the card. And Provider Accounts must 
allow employees to have reasonable use of the accounts at no charge, 
which means, inter alia, that the Provider Account and associated card 
must not impose any periodic fees.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ The Provider may charge, at cost, for non-standard uses of 
the Provider Account or associated card as noted in part I.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No interest or other fees are charged against a Covered 
EWA Transaction, ensuring that the amount the Provider is entitled to 
recover does not ``increase[ ] with the passage of time, another 
characteristic of a loan.'' \32\ The absence of interest and other fees 
demonstrates that Providers are not taking on the type of credit risk 
characteristic of a typical credit transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Oasis Legal Fin. Group, LLC v. Coffman, 361 P.3d 400, 410 
(Colo. 2015) (noting in the context of the UCCC that ``growth in the 
repayment obligation over time is a finance charge and a hallmark of 
a consumer loan'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     There are no late fees or prepayment penalties associated 
with a Covered EWA Transaction.
     Providers do not take any payment authorization from 
employees, such as a check, ACH, or debit card authorization.
     Providers do not pull credit reports or credit scores on 
individual employees or otherwise assess their credit risk.
     Providers do not report information concerning Covered EWA 
Transactions to consumer reporting agencies.
     Providers do not engage in debt collection activities 
related to Covered EWA Transactions or place such amounts as debt with, 
or sell such amounts to, any third party.
    Finally, the Bureau notes that its interpretation of Sec.  
1026.2(a)(14) in the context of a Covered EWA Program is consistent 
with the Bureau's discussion of these types of products in its 2017 
Payday Lending Rule, where it noted that ``some efforts to give 
consumers access to accrued wages may not be credit at all. For 
instance, when an employer allows an employee to draw accrued wages 
ahead of a scheduled payday and then later reduces the employee's 
paycheck by the amount drawn, there is a quite plausible argument that 
the transaction does not involve `credit' because the employee may not 
be incurring a debt at all.'' \33\ The Bureau stated that it ``is aware 
that some of these products provide access to the consumer's own funds 
in the form of earned wages already accrued but not yet paid out 
because of administrative and payroll processes historically developed 
by employers.'' \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 82 FR 54472, 54547 (Nov. 17, 2017). The Bureau further 
noted that this ``is especially likely where the employer does not 
reserve any recourse upon the payment made to the employee other 
than the corresponding reduction in the employee's paycheck,'' but 
that other initiatives are more likely to constitute ``credit'' 
under Regulation Z. Id. ``For example, if an employer cannot simply 
reduce the amount of an employee's paycheck because payroll 
processing has already begun, there may be a need for a mechanism 
for the consumer to repay the funds after they are deposited in the 
consumer's account.'' Id.
    \34\ Id. at 54548. The Bureau contrasted this with ``other 
products [that] rely on estimates of wages likely to be accrued, or 
accrued on average, and may make advances against expected wages 
that are not already earned and accrued.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, Covered EWA Programs are designed to ``provide access to 
the consumer's own funds'' through Covered EWA Transactions that are 
limited to the accrued cash value of employee wages. Providers recover 
amounts corresponding to such transactions through payroll deductions 
and they retain no right to pursue claims against employees in the 
event of a failed or partial deduction.

[[Page 79408]]

    This advisory opinion applies solely to the question of whether 
Covered EWA Programs (i.e., those meeting all of the characteristics 
described in part I.B above) fall under the definition of credit in 
section 1026.2(a)(14) of Regulation Z identified above. This advisory 
opinion has no application to any other circumstance, and it does not 
offer a legal interpretation of any other provisions of law.
    The Bureau continues to seek stakeholder feedback and evaluate 
whether the Bureau should provide any additional guidance (including 
through its advisory opinion and innovation policies) about the 
application of Regulation Z to EWA programs that differ from those 
described in part I.B above.

II. Regulatory Matters

    This advisory opinion is an interpretive rule issued under the 
Bureau's authority to interpret TILA and Regulation Z, including under 
section 1022(b)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Act, which authorizes guidance as 
may be necessary or appropriate to enable the Bureau to administer and 
carry out the purposes and objectives of Federal consumer financial 
laws.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By operation of TILA section 130(f), no provision of TILA sections 
130, 108(b), 108(c), 108(e), or 112 imposing any liability applies to 
any act done or omitted in good faith in conformity with this 
interpretive rule, notwithstanding that after such act or omission has 
occurred, the interpretive rule is amended, rescinded, or determined by 
judicial or other authority to be invalid for any reason.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 1640(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an interpretive rule, this advisory opinion is exempt from the 
notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements of the Administrative 
Procedure Act.\37\ Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is 
required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require an initial or 
final regulatory flexibility analysis.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
    \38\ 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Bureau has also determined that this advisory opinion does not 
impose any new or revise any existing recordkeeping, reporting, or 
disclosure requirements on covered entities or members of the public 
that would be collections of information requiring approval by the 
Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 through 3521.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,\40\ the Bureau will 
submit a report containing this interpretive rule and other required 
information to the United States Senate, the United States House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to the rule's published effective date. The Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs has designated this interpretive rule as not a 
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Signing Authority

    The Director of the Bureau, Kathleen L. Kraninger, having reviewed 
and approved this document, is delegating the authority to 
electronically sign this document to Grace Feola, a Bureau Federal 
Register Liaison, for purposes of publication in the Federal Register.

    Dated: November 30, 2020.
Grace Feola,
Federal Register Liaison, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
[FR Doc. 2020-26664 Filed 12-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P