[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 221 (Friday, November 17, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 80197-80216]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24978]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

12 CFR Part 1090

[Docket No. CFPB-2023-0053]
RIN 3170-AB17


Defining Larger Participants of a Market for General-Use Digital 
Consumer Payment Applications

AGENCY: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) proposes a 
rule to define a market for general-use digital consumer payment 
applications. The proposed market would cover providers of funds 
transfer and wallet functionalities through digital applications for 
consumers' general use in making payments to other persons for 
personal, family, or household purposes. Larger participants of this 
market would be subject to the CFPB's supervisory authority under the 
Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA).

DATES:  Comments should be received on or before January 8, 2024.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB-2023-
0053 or RIN 3170-AB17, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. A brief summary of 
this document will be available at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/CFPB-2023-0053.
     Email: [email protected]. Include Docket No. 
CFPB-2023-0053 or RIN 3170-AB17 in the subject line of the message.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Comment Intake--LP Payment 
Apps Rulemaking, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, c/o Legal 
Division Docket Manager, 1700 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20552. 
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the CFPB is 
subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments 
electronically.
    Instructions: The CFPB encourages the early submission of comments. 
All submissions should include the agency name and docket number or 
Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. In general, 
all comments received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov.
    All comments, including attachments and other supporting materials, 
will become part of the public record and are subject to public 
disclosure. Proprietary information or sensitive personal information, 
such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, or names of other 
individuals, should not be included. Comments will not be edited to 
remove any identifying or contact information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Young, Deputy Assistant 
Director, and Owen Bonheimer, Senior Counsel, Office of Supervision 
Policy, at 202-435-7700. If you require this document in an alternative 
electronic format, please contact [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    Section 1024 of the CFPA,\1\ codified at 12 U.S.C. 5514, gives the 
CFPB supervisory authority over all nonbank covered persons \2\ 
offering or providing three enumerated types of consumer financial 
products or services: (1) Origination, brokerage, or servicing of 
consumer loans secured by real estate and related mortgage loan 
modification or foreclosure relief services; (2) private education 
loans; and (3) payday loans.\3\ The CFPB also has supervisory authority 
over ``larger participant[s] of a market for other consumer financial 
products or services,'' as the CFPB defines by rule.\4\ In addition, 
the CFPB has the authority to supervise any nonbank covered person that 
it ``has reasonable cause to determine by order, after notice to the 
covered person and a reasonable opportunity . . . to respond . . . is 
engaging, or has engaged, in

[[Page 80198]]

conduct that poses risks to consumers with regard to the offering or 
provision of consumer financial products or services.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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, 1955 (2010) (hereinafter, ``CFPA'').
    \2\ The provisions of 12 U.S.C. 5514 apply to certain categories 
of covered persons, described in section (a)(1), and expressly 
excludes from coverage persons described in 12 U.S.C. 5515(a) or 
5516(a). The term ``covered person'' means ``(A) any person that 
engages in offering or providing a consumer financial product or 
service; and (B) any affiliate of a person described [in (A)] if 
such affiliate acts as a service provider to such person.'' 12 
U.S.C. 5481(6).
    \3\ 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(A), (D), (E).
    \4\ 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(B), (a)(2); see also 12 U.S.C. 5481(5) 
(defining ``consumer financial product or service'').
    \5\ 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(C); see also 12 CFR part 1091 
(prescribing procedures for making determinations under 12 U.S.C. 
5514(a)(1)(C)). In addition, the CFPB has supervisory authority over 
very large depository institutions and credit unions and their 
affiliates. 12 U.S.C. 5515(a). Furthermore, the CFPB has certain 
authorities relating to the supervision of other depository 
institutions and credit unions. 12 U.S.C. 5516(c)(1). One of the 
CFPB's mandates under the CFPA is to ensure that ``Federal consumer 
financial law is enforced consistently without regard to the status 
of a person as a depository institution, in order to promote fair 
competition.'' 12 U.S.C. 5511(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed rule (the Proposed Rule) would be a sixth in a series 
of CFPB rulemakings to define larger participants of markets for 
consumer financial products and services for purposes of CFPA section 
1024(a)(1)(B).\6\ The Proposed Rule would establish the CFPB's 
supervisory authority over certain nonbank covered persons 
participating in a market for ``general-use digital consumer payment 
applications.'' \7\ In establishing the CFPB's supervisory authority 
over such persons, the Proposed Rule would not impose new substantive 
consumer protection requirements or alter the scope of the CFPB's other 
authorities. In addition, some nonbank covered persons that would be 
subject to the CFPB's supervisory authority under the Proposed Rule 
also may be subject to other CFPB supervisory authorities under CFPA 
section 1024, including, for example, as a larger participant in 
another market defined by a previous CFPB larger participant rule. 
Finally, regardless of whether they are subject to the CFPB's 
supervisory authority, nonbank covered persons generally are subject to 
the CFPB's regulatory and enforcement authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The first five rules defined larger participants of markets 
for consumer reporting, 77 FR 42874 (July 20, 2012) (Consumer 
Reporting Rule), consumer debt collection, 77 FR 65775 (Oct. 31, 
2012) (Consumer Debt Collection Rule), student loan servicing, 78 FR 
73383 (Dec. 6, 2013) (Student Loan Servicing Rule), international 
money transfers, 79 FR 56631 (Sept. 23, 2014) (International Money 
Transfer Rule), and automobile financing, 80 FR 37496 (June 30, 
2015) (Automobile Financing Rule).
    \7\ As the CFPB noted in its first larger participant rule 
covering the consumer reporting market, the CFPB's supervisory 
authority ``is not limited to the products or services that 
qualified the person for supervision, but also includes other 
activities of such a person that involve other consumer financial 
products or services or are subject to Federal consumer financial 
law.'' 77 FR 42874, 42880 (July 20, 2012), cited by Larger 
Participant Debt Collection Rule, 77 FR 65775, 65776 n.15 (Oct. 31, 
2012). For example, selling, providing, or issuing of stored value 
or payment instruments is associated with the activity that falls 
within the proposed market definition, and may constitute a consumer 
financial product or service that the CFPB may supervise when 
examining a larger participant of the proposed market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed market would include providers of funds transfer and 
wallet functionalities through digital applications for consumers' 
general use in making payments to other persons for personal, family, 
or household purposes. Examples include many consumer financial 
products and services that are commonly described as ``digital 
wallets,'' ``payment apps,'' ``funds transfer apps,'' ``person-to-
person payment apps,'' ``P2P apps,'' and the like. Providers of 
consumer financial products and services delivered through these 
digital applications help consumers to make a wide variety of consumer 
payment transactions, including payments to friends and family and 
payments for purchases of nonfinancial goods and services.
    The CFPB is authorized to supervise nonbank covered persons subject 
to CFPA section 1024 for purposes of (1) assessing compliance with 
Federal consumer financial law; (2) obtaining information about such 
persons' activities and compliance systems or procedures; and (3) 
detecting and assessing risks to consumers and consumer financial 
markets.\8\ The CFPB conducts examinations, of various scopes, of 
supervised entities. In addition, the CFPB may, as appropriate, request 
information from supervised entities prior to or without conducting 
examinations.\9\ Section 1090.103(d) of the CFPB's existing larger 
participant regulations provides that the CFPB may require submission 
of certain records, documents, and other information for purposes of 
assessing whether a person is a larger participant of a covered 
market.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 12 U.S.C. 5514(b)(1). The CFPB's supervisory authority also 
extends to service providers of those covered persons that are 
subject to supervision under 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1). 12 U.S.C. 
5514(e); see also 12 U.S.C. 5481(26) (defining ``service 
provider'').
    \9\ See 12 U.S.C. 5514(b) (authorizing the CFPB both to conduct 
examinations and to require reports from entities subject to 
supervision).
    \10\ 12 CFR 1090.103(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFPB prioritizes supervisory activity among nonbank covered 
persons on the basis of risk, taking into account, among other factors, 
the size of each entity, the volume of its transactions involving 
consumer financial products or services, the size and risk presented by 
the market in which it is a participant, the extent of relevant State 
oversight, and any field and market information that the CFPB has on 
the entity.\11\ Such field and market information can include, for 
example, information from complaints and any other information the CFPB 
has about risks to consumers and to markets posed by a particular 
entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For further description of the CFPB's supervisory 
prioritization process, see CFPB Supervision and Examination Manual 
(updated September 2023), part I.A at 11-12, available at https://www.consumerfinance.gov/compliance/supervision-examinations/ (last 
visited Oct. 27, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The specifics of how an examination takes place vary by market and 
entity. However, the examination process generally proceeds as follows. 
CFPB examiners contact the entity for an initial conference with 
management and often request records and other information. CFPB 
examiners ordinarily also review the components of the supervised 
entity's compliance management system. Based on these discussions and a 
preliminary review of the information received, examiners determine the 
scope of an on-site or remote examination and then coordinate with the 
entity to initiate this portion of the examination. While on-site or 
working remotely, examiners spend some time discussing with management 
the entity's compliance policies, processes, and procedures; reviewing 
documents and records; testing transactions and accounts for 
compliance; and evaluating the entity's compliance management system. 
Examinations may involve issuing confidential examination reports, 
supervisory letters, and compliance ratings. In addition to the process 
described above, the CFPB also may conduct other supervisory 
activities, such as periodic monitoring.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The CFPB is aware that States have been active in 
regulation of money transmission by money services businesses and 
that many States actively examine money transmitters. If the CFPB 
adopts the Proposed Rule, the CFPB would coordinate with appropriate 
State regulatory authorities in examining larger participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule

    The CFPB is authorized to define larger participants in markets for 
consumer financial products or services. Subpart A of the CFPB's 
existing larger-participant rule, 12 CFR part 1090, prescribed 
procedures, definitions, standards, and protocols that apply for all 
markets in which the CFPB defines larger participants.\13\ Those 
generally-applicable provisions also would apply to the general-use 
digital consumer payment application market described by the Proposed 
Rule. The definitions in Sec.  1090.101 should be used to interpret 
terms in the Proposed Rule unless otherwise specified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 12 CFR 1090.100 through 103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFPB includes relevant market descriptions and associated 
larger-participant tests, as it develops them, in

[[Page 80199]]

subpart B.\14\ Accordingly, the Proposed Rule defining larger 
participants of a market for general-use digital consumer payment 
applications would become Sec.  1090.109 in subpart B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 12 CFR 1090.104 (consumer reporting market); 12 CFR 
1090.105 (consumer debt collection market); 12 CFR 1090.106 (student 
loan servicing market); 12 CFR 1090.107 (international money 
transfer market); 12 CFR 1090.108 (automobile financing market).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Proposed Rule would define a market for general-use digital 
consumer payment applications that would cover specific activities. The 
proposed market definition generally includes nonbank covered persons 
that provide funds transfer or wallet functionalities through a digital 
application for consumers' general use in making consumer payments 
transactions as defined in the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule defines 
``consumer payment transactions'' to include payments to other persons 
for personal, household, or family purposes, excluding certain 
transactions as described in more detail in the section-by-section 
analysis in part IV below. The Proposed Rule also provides specific 
examples of digital payment applications that do not fall within the 
proposed market definition because they do not have general use for 
purposes of the Proposed Rule.
    The Proposed Rule would set forth a test to determine whether a 
nonbank covered person is a larger participant of the general-use 
digital consumer payment applications market. A nonbank covered person 
would be a larger participant if it satisfies two criteria. First, the 
nonbank covered person (together with its affiliated companies) must 
provide general-use digital consumer payment applications with an 
annual volume of at least five million consumer payment transactions. 
Second, the nonbank covered person must not be a small business concern 
based on the applicable Small Business Administration (SBA) size 
standard. As prescribed by existing Sec.  1090.102, any nonbank covered 
person that qualifies as a larger participant would remain a larger 
participant until two years from the first day of the tax year in which 
the person last met the larger-participant test.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 12 CFR 1090.102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, Sec.  1090.103(d) of the CFPB's existing larger 
participant regulation provides that the CFPB may require submission of 
certain records, documents, and other information for purposes of 
assessing whether a person is a larger participant of a covered 
market.\16\ This authority would be available to facilitate the CFPB's 
identification of larger participants of the general-use digital 
consumer payment applications market, just as in other markets defined 
in subpart B. In addition, pursuant to existing Sec.  1090.103(a), a 
person would be able to dispute whether it qualifies as a larger 
participant in the general-use digital payment applications market. The 
CFPB would notify an entity when the CFPB intended to undertake 
supervisory activity; the entity would then have an opportunity to 
submit documentary evidence and written arguments in support of its 
claim that it was not a larger participant.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 12 CFR 1090.103(d).
    \17\ 12 CFR 1090.103(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFPB invites comment on all aspects of this notice of proposed 
rulemaking and on the specific issues on which it solicits comment 
elsewhere herein, including on any appropriate modifications or 
exceptions to the Proposed Rule.

III. Legal Authority and Procedural Matters

A. Rulemaking Authority

    The CFPB is issuing the Proposed Rule pursuant to its authority 
under the CFPA, as follows: (1) sections 1024(a)(1)(B) and (a)(2), 
which authorize the CFPB to supervise nonbanks that are larger 
participants of markets for consumers financial products or services, 
as defined by rule; \18\ (2) section 1024(b)(7), which, among other 
things, authorizes the CFPB to prescribe rules to facilitate the 
supervision of covered persons under section 1024; \19\ and (3) section 
1022(b)(1), which grants the CFPB the authority to prescribe rules as 
may be necessary or appropriate to enable the CFPB to administer and 
carry out the purposes and objectives of Federal consumer financial 
law, and to prevent evasions of such law.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(B), (a)(2).
    \19\ 12 U.S.C. 5514(b)(7).
    \20\ 12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consultation With Other Agencies

    In developing the Proposed Rule, the CFPB has consulted with or 
provided an opportunity for consultation and input to the Federal Trade 
Commission (FTC), as well as with the Board of Governors of the Federal 
Reserve System, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Financial Crimes Enforcement 
Network, the National Credit Union Administration, the Office of the 
Comptroller of the Currency, and the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, on, among other things, consistency with any prudential, 
market, or systemic objectives administered by such agencies.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Specifically, 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(2) directs the CFPB to 
consult, prior to issuing a final rule to define larger participants 
of a market pursuant to CFPA section 1024(a)(1)(B), with the FTC. In 
addition, 12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(2)(B) directs the CFPB to consult, 
before and during the rulemaking, with appropriate prudential 
regulators or other Federal agencies, regarding consistency with 
objectives those agencies administer. The manner and extent to which 
provisions of 12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(2) apply to a rulemaking of this 
kind that does not establish standards of conduct are unclear. 
Nevertheless, to inform this rulemaking more fully, the CFPB 
performed the consultations described in those provisions of the 
CFPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Proposed Effective Date of Final Rule

    The Administrative Procedure Act generally requires that rules be 
published not less than 30 days before their effective dates.\22\ The 
CFPB proposes that, once issued, the final rule for this proposal would 
be effective 30 days after it is published in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis

Part 1090

Subpart B--Markets
Section 1090.109 General-Use Digital Consumer Payment Applications 
Market
    The Proposed Rule would add a new Sec.  1090.109 to existing 
subpart B of part 1090 of the CFPB's rules to establish CFPB 
supervisory authority over nonbank covered persons who are larger 
participants in a market for general-use digital consumer payment 
applications.\23\ Proposed Sec.  1090.109 includes the proposed market 
definition and market-related definitions in paragraph (a) and a test 
to define larger participants in a market for general-use digital 
consumer payment applications in paragraph (b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ As discussed further below, the general-use digital payment 
applications described in the Proposed Rule are ``financial products 
or services'' under the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. 5481(15)(A)(iv), (vii). 
Nonbanks that offer or provide such financial products or services 
to consumers primarily for personal, family, or household purposes 
are covered persons under the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. 5481(5)(A), (6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many nonbanks provide consumer financial products and services that 
allow consumers to use digital applications accessible through personal 
computing devices, such as mobile phones, tablets, smart watches, or 
computers, to transfer funds to other persons. Some nonbanks also 
provide consumer financial products and services that allow consumers 
to use digital applications on their personal computing devices to 
store payment credentials they can then use to purchase goods or 
services at a variety

[[Page 80200]]

of stores, whether by communicating with a checkout register or a self-
checkout machine, or by selecting the payment credential through a 
checkout process at ecommerce websites. Subject to the definitions, 
exclusions, limitations, and clarifications discussed below, the 
proposed market definition generally would cover these consumer 
financial products and services.
    The CFPB is proposing to establish supervisory authority over 
nonbank covered persons who are larger participants in this market 
because this market has large and increasing significance to the 
everyday financial lives of consumers.\24\ Consumers are growing 
increasingly reliant on general-use digital consumer payment 
applications to initiate payments.\25\ Recent market research indicates 
that 76 percent of Americans have used at least one of four well-known 
P2P payment apps, representing substantial growth since the first of 
the four was established in 1998.\26\ Even among consumers with annual 
incomes lower than $30,000 who have more limited access to digital 
technology,\27\ 61 percent reported using P2P payment apps.\28\ And 
higher rates of use by U.S. adults in lower age brackets may drive 
further growth well into the future.\29\ Across the United States, 
merchant acceptance of general-use digital consumer payment 
applications also has rapidly expanded as businesses seek to make it as 
easy as possible for consumers to make purchases through whatever is 
their preferred payment method.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ In proposing a larger participant rule for this market, the 
CFPB is not proposing to determine the relative risk posed by this 
market as compared to other markets. As explained in its previous 
larger participant rulemakings, ``[t]he Bureau need not conclude 
before issuing a [larger participant rule] that the market 
identified in the rule has a higher rate of non-compliance, poses a 
greater risk to consumers, or is in some other sense more important 
to supervise than other markets.'' 77 FR 65779.
    \25\ See CFPB, ``Issue Spotlight: Analysis of Deposit Insurance 
Coverage Through Payment Apps'' (June 1, 2023), available at https://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/research-reports/issue-spotlight-analysis-of-deposit-insurance-coverage-on-funds-stored-through-payment-apps/full-report/ (last visited Oct. 23, 2023); see 
also McKinsey & Company, ``Consumer digital payments: Already 
mainstream, increasingly embedded, still evolving'' (Oct. 20, 2023) 
(describing results of consulting firm's annual survey reporting 
that for the first time, more than 90 percent of U.S. consumers 
surveyed in August 2023 reported using some form of digital payment 
over the course of a year), available at https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/financial-services/our-insights/banking-matters/consumer-digital-payments-already-mainstream-increasingly-embedded-still-evolving (last visited Oct. 30, 2023); J.D. Power, ``Banking and 
Payments Intelligence Report'' (Jan. 2023) (reporting results of a 
survey of Americans that found that from the first quarter of 2021 
to the third quarter of 2022, the number of respondents who had used 
a mobile wallet in the past three months rose from 38 percent to 49 
percent), available at https://www.jdpower.com/business/resources/mobile-wallets-gain-popularity-growing-number-americans-still-prefer-convenience (last visited Oct. 23, 2023); ``PULSE Study Finds 
Debit Issuers Focused on Digital Payments, Mobile Self-Service, 
Fraud Mitigation'' (Aug. 17, 2023) (reporting that nearly 80 percent 
of debit card issuers reported increases in consumers' use of mobile 
wallets in 2022), available at https://www.pulsenetwork.com/public/insights-and-news/news-release-2023-debit-issuer-study/ (last 
visited Oct. 30, 2023); FIS, ``The Global Payments Report'' (2023) 
at 174 (industry study reporting that in 2022 digital wallets become 
the leading payment preference of U.S. consumers shopping online), 
available at https://www.fisglobal.com/en/global-payments-report 
(last visited Oct. 30, 2023); ``Digital Payment Industry in 2023: 
Payment methods, trends, and tech processing payments 
electronically,'' Insider Intelligence (Jan. 9, 2023) (projecting 
2023 P2P volume in the United States to reach over $1.1 trillion), 
available at https://www.insiderintelligence.com/insights/digital-payment-services (last visited Oct. 30, 2023); Consumer Reports 
Survey Group, ``Peer-to-Peer Payment Services'' (Jan. 10, 2023) 
(Consumer Reports P2P Survey) at 2 (reporting results from a survey 
finding that four in ten Americans use P2P services at least once a 
month), available at https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/P2P-Report-4-Surveys-2022.pdf (last visited 
Oct. 23, 2023); Kevin Foster, Claire Greene, and Joanna Stavins, 
``2022 Survey and Diary of Consumer Payment Choice: Summary 
Results'' (Sept. 17, 2022) at 8 (reporting results of 2022 survey 
conducted by Federal Reserve System staff reporting that two thirds 
of consumers had adopted one or more online payment accounts in the 
previous 12 months--a share that was nearly 20 percent higher than 
five years earlier), available at https://www.atlantafed.org/-/media/documents/banking/consumer-payments/survey-diary-consumer-payment-choice/2022/sdcpc_2022_report.pdf (last visited Oct. 30, 
2023); FDIC, ``FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked 
Households'' (2021) at 33 (Table 6.4 reporting finding that nearly 
half of all households (46.4 percent) used a nonbank app in 2021), 
available at https://www.fdic.gov/analysis/household-survey/2021report.pdf (last visited Oct. 23, 2023).
    \26\ See, e.g., Monica Anderson, ``Payment apps like Venmo and 
Cash App bring convenience--and security concerns--to some users'' 
(Sept. 8, 2022), available at https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/09/08/payment-apps-like-venmo-and-cash-app-bring-convenience-and-security-concerns-to-some-users/ (last visited Oct. 
23, 2023).
    \27\ Emily A. Vogels, ``Digital divide persists even as 
Americans with lower incomes make gains in tech adoption'' (June 22, 
2021) (reporting results of early 2021 survey by Pew Research 
Center, finding 76 percent of adults with annual household incomes 
less than $30,000 have a smartphone and 59 percent have a desktop or 
laptop consumer, compared with 87 percent and 84 percent 
respectively of adults with household incomes between $30,000 and 
$99,999, and 97 percent and 92 percent respectively of adults with 
household incomes of $100,000 or more), available at https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/06/22/digital-divide-persists-even-as-americans-with-lower-incomes-make-gains-in-tech-adoption/ 
(last visited Oct. 23, 2023).
    \28\ Consumer Reports P2P Survey at 2.
    \29\ See id. (85 percent of surveyed consumers aged 18 to 29 and 
85 percent of surveyed consumers aged 30 to 44 reported using a 
digital payment application, compared with 67 percent of consumers 
aged 45 to 59 and 46 percent of consumers aged 60 and over); see 
also Ariana-Michele Moore, ``The U.S. P2P Payments Market: 
Surprising Data Reveals Banks are Missing the Mark'' (June 2023 
AiteNovarica Impact Report) at 8 (Figure 13 reporting 94 percent and 
86 percent adoption of P2P accounts and digital wallets among the 
youngest adult cohort born between 1996 and 2002, compared with 57 
percent and 40 percent among the oldest cohort born before 1995), 
available at https://aite-novarica.com/report/us-p2p-payments-market-surprising-data-reveals-banks-are-missing-mark (last visited 
Oct. 23, 2023).
    \30\ See Geoff Williams, ``Retailers are embracing alternative 
payment methods, though cards are still king'' (Dec. 1, 2022) 
(National Retail Federation article citing its 2022 report 
indicating that 80 percent of merchants accept Apple Pay or plan to 
do so in the next 18 months, and 65 percent of merchants accept 
Google Pay or plan to do so in the next 18 months), available at 
https://nrf.com/blog/retailers-are-embracing-alternative-payment-methods-though-cards-are-still-king (last visited Oct. 23, 2023); 
see also The Strawhecker Group (TSG), ``Merchants respond to 
Consumer Demand by Offering P2P Payments'' (June 8, 2022) (reporting 
results of TSG and Electronic Transactions Association survey of 
over 500 small businesses merchants finding that 82 percent accept 
payment through at least one digital P2P option), available at 
https://thestrawgroup.com/merchants-respond-to-consumer-demand-by-offering-p2p-payments/ (last visited Oct. 23, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consumers rely on general-use digital consumer payment applications 
for many aspects of their everyday lives. In general, consumers make 
payments to other individuals for a variety of reasons, including 
sending gifts or making informal loans to friends and family and 
purchasing goods and services, among many others.\31\ Consumers can use 
digital applications to make payments to individuals for these 
purposes, as well as to make payments to businesses, charities, and 
other organizations. According to one recent market report, nonbank 
digital payment apps have rapidly grown in the past few years to become 
the most popular way to send money to other individuals other than 
cash,\32\ and are used for a higher number of such transactions than 
cash.\33\ For many consumers, general-use digital consumer payment 
applications offer an alternative, technological replacement for non-
digital payment methods.\34\

[[Page 80201]]

Consumers increasingly have adopted general-use digital consumer 
payment applications \35\ as part of a broader movement toward noncash 
payments.\36\ Amid growing merchant acceptance of general-use digital 
consumer payment applications, consumers with middle and lower incomes 
use digital consumer payment applications for a share of their overall 
retail spending that rivals or exceeds their use of cash.\37\ Such 
applications now have a share of ecommerce payments volume that is 
similar to or greater than other traditional payment methods such as 
credit cards and debit cards used outside of such applications.\38\ 
Such applications also have been gaining an increasing share of in-
person retail spending.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ June 2023 AiteNovarica Impact Report at 8 (Figure 1 
reporting 66 percent of 5,895 consumers surveyed reported making at 
least one domestic P2P payment in 2022 whether via digital means or 
not, and of consumers who made P2P payments in 2022, 70 percent did 
so for birthday gifts, 64 percent for holiday gifts, 49 percent for 
other gift occasions, 46 percent to lend money, 41 percent to make a 
charitable contribution, 39 percent paid for services, 39 percent 
purchased items, 31 percent provided funds in an emergency 
situation, and 18 percent provided financial support).
    \32\ Id. at 25 (Figure 14 reporting that 74 percent of consumers 
made P2P payments in cash and 69 percent used certain alternative 
digital P2P payment services).
    \33\ Id. at 27-28 (Figure 15 reporting that, compared with 20 
percent of transactions in cash, 37 percent of P2P transactions made 
through alternative P2P payment services, even before including 
Zelle, prepaid cards, and domestic money transfer services).
    \34\ See Marqueta, ``2022 State of Consumer Money Movement 
Report'' (May 26, 2022) at 5 (reporting results of industry survey 
finding that 56 percent of US consumers felt comfortable leaving 
their non-digital wallet at home and taking their phone with them to 
make payments), available at https://www.marqeta.com/resources/2022-state-of-consumer-money-movement (last visited Oct. 23, 2023).
    \35\ June 2023 AiteNovarica Impact Report at 24 (Figure 13 
reporting 81 percent of U.S. adults surveyed held one or more P2P 
accounts and 69 percent had one or more digital wallets).
    \36\ ``The Federal Reserve Payments Study: 2022 Triennial 
Initial Data Release'' (indicating a rapid increase in core non-cash 
payments between 2018 and 2021 and a rapid decline in ATM cash 
withdrawals during the same period), available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/fr-payments-study.htm (last 
visited Oct. 23, 2023).
    \37\ PYMNTS, ``Digital Economy Payments: The Ascent of Digital 
Wallets'' (Feb. 2023) at 16-17 (December 2022 survey finding 6.1 
percent of overall consumer spending by consumers with lower incomes 
made using digital consumer payment applications, compared with 9.9 
percent of consumer spending by consumers with middle-level 
incomes), available at https://www.pymnts.com/study/digital-economy-payments-ecommerce-shopping-retail-consumer-spending/ (last visited 
Oct. 23, 2023).
    \38\ See FIS, ``Global Payments Report'' (2023) at 176 
(reporting 32 percent share of ecommerce transactions, by value, 
made using a digital wallet, compared with 30 percent by credit card 
and 20 percent by debit card), available at https://www.fisglobal.com/en/global-payments-report (last visited Oct. 23, 
2023).
    \39\ See, e.g., ``2023 Pulse Debit Issuer Study'' (Aug. 17, 
2023) at 11 (reporting that mobile wallet use at point of sale 
doubled in 2022, representing nearly 10 percent of total debit card 
purchase transactions in 2022), available at https://www.pulsenetwork.com/public/debit-issuer-study/ (last visited Oct. 
30, 2023); ``Digital Economy Payments: The Ascent of Digital 
Wallets'' at 12 (December 2022 survey finding 7.5 percent of in-
person consumer purchase volume made with a digital consumer payment 
application). See also CFPB Issue Spotlight, ``Big Tech's Role in 
Contactless Payments: Analysis of Mobile Devices Operating Systems 
and Tap-to-Pay Practices'' (Sept. 7, 2023) (Competition Spotlight) 
(describing market report by Juniper Research forecasting that the 
value of digital wallet tap-to-pay transactions will grow by over 
150 percent by 2028), available at https://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/research-reports/big-techs-role-in-contactless-payments-analysis-of-mobile-device-operating-systems-and-tap-to-pay-practices/full-report/ (last visited Oct. 23, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Proposed Rule would bring nonbanks that are larger participants 
in a market for general-use digital consumer payment applications 
within the CFPB's supervisory jurisdiction.\40\ Supervision of larger 
participants, who engage in a substantial portion of the overall 
activity in this market, would help to ensure that they are complying 
with applicable requirements of Federal consumer financial law, such as 
the CFPA's prohibition against unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and 
practices, the privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and its 
implementing Regulation P,\41\ and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and 
its implementing Regulation E.\42\ In addition, as firms increasingly 
offer funds transfer and wallet functionalities through general-use 
digital consumer payment applications, the rule would enable the CFPB 
to monitor for new risks to both consumers and the market.\43\ The 
CFPB's ability to monitor for emerging risks is critical as new product 
offerings blur the traditional lines of banking and commerce.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(B).
    \41\ See generally 12 CFR part 1016 (CFPB's Regulation P 
implementing 15 U.S.C. 6804).
    \42\ 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq., implemented by Regulation E, 12 CFR 
part 1005. See, e.g., 12 CFR 1005.11 (Procedures for financial 
institutions to resolve errors). This incentive for improved 
compliance applies not only to nonbank covered persons when 
providing a general-use digital consumer payment application, but 
also when providing related products, such as stored value accounts.
    \43\ See, e.g., CFPB, ``The Convergence of Payments and 
Commerce: Implications for Consumers'' (Aug. 2022) at sec. 4.1 
(highlighting the potential that consumer financial data and 
behavioral data are used together in increasingly novel ways), 
available at https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_convergence-payments-commerce-implications-consumers_report_2022-08.pdf (last visited Oct. 27, 2023).
    \44\ See generally id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Proposed Rule can help level the playing field between 
nonbanks and depository institutions, which the CFPB regularly 
supervises and which also provide general-use digital consumer payment 
applications.\45\ Greater supervision of nonbanks in this market 
therefore would further the CFPB's statutory objective of ensuring that 
Federal consumer financial law is enforced consistently between 
nonbanks and depository institutions in order to promote fair 
competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ For example, some depository institutions and credit unions 
provide general bill payment services and other types of electronic 
fund transfers through digital applications for consumer deposit 
accounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

109(a)(1) Market Definition--Providing a General-Use Digital Consumer 
Payment Application
    Proposed Sec.  1090.109(a)(1) would describe the market for 
consumer financial products or services covered by the Proposed Rule as 
encompassing ``providing a general-use digital consumer payment 
application.'' The term would be defined to mean providing a covered 
payment functionality through a digital application for consumers' 
general use in making consumer payment transaction(s). This term 
incorporates other terms defined in proposed Sec.  1090.109(a)(2): 
``consumer payment transaction(s),'' ``covered payment functionality,'' 
``digital application,'' and ``general use.'' The term ``covered 
payment functionality'' includes a ``funds transfer functionality'' and 
a ``wallet functionality,'' terms which proposed Sec.  1090.109(a)(2) 
also defines. The term ``consumer payment transaction(s)'' also 
incorporates another term--``State,'' which proposed Sec.  
1090.109(a)(2) defines. The section-by-section analysis of proposed 
Sec.  1090.109(a)(2) below discusses these and other aspects of the 
proposed definitions of these terms.
    The CFPB seeks comment on all aspects of the proposed market 
definition, including whether the market definition in proposed Sec.  
1090.109(a)(1) or the market-related definitions in proposed Sec.  
1090.109(a)(2), discussed in the section-by-section analysis below, 
should be expanded, narrowed, or otherwise modified.
109(a)(2) Market-Related Definitions
    Proposed Sec.  1090.109(a)(2) would define several terms that are 
relevant to the market definition described above.
Consumer Payment Transaction(s)
    The proposed market definition applies to providing covered payment 
functionalities through a digital application for a consumer's general 
use in making consumer payment transactions. Proposed Sec.  
1090.109(a)(2) would define the term ``consumer payment transactions'' 
to mean the transfer of funds by or on behalf of a consumer physically 
located in a State to another person primarily for personal, family, or 
household purposes. The proposed definition would clarify that, except 
for transactions excluded under paragraphs (A) through (D), the term 
applies to transfers of consumer funds and transfers made by extending 
consumer credit. Paragraphs (A) through (D) of the proposed definition 
would exclude the

[[Page 80202]]

following four types of transactions: (A) An international money 
transfer as defined in Sec.  1090.107(a) of this part; (B) A transfer 
of funds that is (1) linked to the consumer's receipt of a different 
form of funds, such as a transaction for foreign exchange as defined in 
12 U.S.C. 5481(16), or (2) that is excluded from the definition of 
``electronic fund transfer'' under Sec.  1005.3(c)(4) of this chapter; 
(C) A payment transaction conducted by a person for the sale or lease 
of goods or services that a consumer selected from an online or 
physical store or marketplace operated prominently in the name or such 
person or its affiliated company; and (D) An extension of consumer 
credit that is made using a digital application provided by the person 
who is extending the credit or that person's affiliated company.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Subpart A of the CFPB's existing larger-participant rule 
includes a definition of ``affiliated company'' that would apply to 
the use of that term in the Proposed Rule. See 12 CFR 1090.101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Proposed Rule would define the term ``consumer payment 
transaction'' for purposes of the Proposed Rule. Payment transactions 
that are excluded from, or otherwise do not meet, the definition of 
``consumer payment transaction'' in the Proposed Rule would not be 
covered by the market definition in the Proposed Rule. However, persons 
facilitating those transactions may still be subject to other aspects 
of the CFPB's authorities besides its larger participant supervisory 
authority established by the Proposed Rule.
    The first component of the proposed definition of ``consumer 
payment transaction'' is that the payment transaction must result in a 
transfer of funds by or on behalf of the consumer. This component 
therefore focuses on the sending of a payment, and not on the receipt. 
The proposed definition would encompass a consumer's transfer of their 
own funds--such as funds held in a linked deposit account or in a 
stored value account. It also would encompass a creditor's transfer of 
funds to another person on behalf of the consumer as part of a consumer 
credit transaction.\47\ For example, a nonbank's wallet functionality 
may hold a credit card account or payment credential that a consumer 
uses to obtain an extension of credit from an unaffiliated depository 
institution. If the consumer uses the digital wallet functionality to 
purchase nonfinancial goods or services using such a credit card, the 
credit card issuing bank may settle the transaction by transferring 
funds to the merchant's bank for further transfer to the merchant, and 
a charge may appear on the consumer's credit card account. That 
transfer of funds may constitute part of a consumer payment transaction 
under the Proposed Rule regardless of whether it is an electronic fund 
transfer subject to Regulation E.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ In certain circumstances, consumer credit transactions 
would be excluded from the proposed definition of ``consumer payment 
transaction,'' for example as described in the exclusion in 
paragraph (D) discussed below.
    \48\ See also generally Sec.  1005.12(a) (describing 
relationship between Regulation E and other laws including the Truth 
in Lending Act and its implementing regulation, Regulation Z).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFPA does not include a specific definition for the term 
``funds,'' but that term is used in various provisions of the CFPA, 
including in section 1002(15)(A)(iv), which defines the term 
``financial product or service'' to include ``engaging in deposit-
taking activities, transmitting or exchanging funds, or otherwise 
acting as a custodian of funds or any financial instrument for use by 
or on behalf of a consumer.'' \49\ Without fully addressing the scope 
of that term, the CFPB believes that, consistent with its plain 
meaning, the term ``funds'' in the CFPA is not limited to fiat currency 
or legal tender, and includes digital assets that have monetary value 
and are readily useable for financial purposes, including as a medium 
of exchange. Crypto-assets, sometimes referred to as virtual currency, 
are one such type of digital asset.\50\ For example, relying on plain 
meaning dictionary definitions, courts have found that certain crypto-
assets, including Bitcoin, constitute ``funds'' for purposes of other 
Federal statutes because they ``can be easily purchased in exchange for 
ordinary currency, acts as a denominator of value, and is used to 
conduct financial transactions.'' \51\ For these reasons, under the 
Proposed Rule, the transfer of funds in the form of the digital assets 
described above by or on behalf of a consumer physically located in a 
State to another person primarily for person, family, or household 
purposes would qualify as a ``consumer payment transaction'' unless one 
of the proposed exclusions to the definition of that term applies. And, 
by extension, providing a covered payment functionality through a 
digital application for consumers' general use in making such consumer 
payment transactions would fall within the proposed market definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 12 U.S.C. 5481(15)(A)(iv).
    \50\ See generally FSOC, ``Report on Digital Asset Financial 
Stability Risks and Regulation'' (Oct. 3, 2022) at 7 (``For the 
purposes of this report, the term `digital assets' refers to two 
categories of products: `central bank digital currencies' (CBDCs) 
and `crypto-assets.' This report largely focuses on crypto-assets. 
Crypto-assets are a private sector digital asset that depends 
primarily on cryptography and distributed ledger or similar 
technology. For the purpose of this report, the term crypto-assets 
encompasses many assets that are commonly referred to as `coins' or 
`tokens' by market participants.''), available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/261/FSOC-Digital-Assets-Report-2022.pdf (last visited Oct. 23, 2023).
    \51\ United States v. Faiella, 39 F. Supp. 3d 544, 545 (S.D.N.Y. 
2014) (citing examples of financial transactions that can be 
conducted using Bitcoin as including purchases of goods and 
services); see also United States v. Iossifov, 45 F.4th 899, 913 
(6th Cir. 2022) (Bitcoin); United States v. Murgio, 209 F. Supp. 3d 
698, 707 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (Bitcoin); United States v. Ulbricht, 31 F. 
Supp. 3d 540, 570 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (Bitcoin); United States v. 
Budovsky, No. 13-CR-368-DLC, 2015 WL 5602853 at *14 (S.D.N.Y Sept. 
23, 2015) (E-Gold).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second component of the proposed definition of ``consumer 
payment transaction'' is that the consumer must be physically located 
in a State, a term the proposal would define by reference to 
jurisdictions that are part of the United States as discussed in the 
section-by-section analysis below. This component would be satisfied, 
for example, when the consumer uses a general-use digital consumer 
payment application on a personal computing device or at a point of 
sale that is physically located in a State. By contrast, with this 
limitation, if a consumer is physically located outside of any State at 
the time of engaging in a payment transaction, then the payment 
transaction would not be a consumer payment transaction covered by the 
Proposed Rule.\52\ Thus, this limitation would clarify that the 
proposed market definition does not include payments initiated by a 
consumer physically located in a foreign country.\53\ Based on its 
understanding of the market, the CFPB expects that participants in the 
proposed market will generally be aware of indicators regarding the 
consumer's location at the time of a transaction (e.g., based on the 
point of sale, the location of the consumer's device, or the consumer's 
residence). The CFPB requests comment on this limitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ This definitional limitation is for purposes of defining 
the market in the Proposed Rule. Transactions excluded from the 
definition of consumer payment transaction in this rule may still be 
payment transactions with a consumer purpose.
    \53\ In addition, when a consumer located in a foreign country 
makes a payment received at a location in the United States, that 
payment would not count as an international money transfer as 
defined in that larger participant rule because the payment is not 
made to be received by a designated recipient at a location in a 
foreign country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The third component of the proposed definition of ``consumer 
payment transaction'' is that the funds transfer must be made to 
another person besides the consumer. For example, the other person 
could be another consumer, a business, or some other type of entity. 
This component would distinguish the

[[Page 80203]]

proposed market for general-use digital payment applications that 
facilitate payments consumers make to other persons from adjacent but 
distinct markets that include other consumer financial products and 
services, including the activities of taking deposits; selling, 
providing, or issuing of stored value; and extending consumer credit by 
transferring funds directly to the consumer. For example, this 
component of the proposed definition would exclude transfers between a 
consumer's own deposit accounts, transfers between a consumer deposit 
account and the same consumer's stored value account held at another 
financial institution, such as loading or redemptions, as well as a 
consumer's withdrawals from their own deposit account such as by an 
automated teller machine (ATM).
    The fourth component of the proposed definition of ``consumer 
payment transaction'' is that the funds transfer must be primarily for 
personal, family, or household purposes. The proposed definition of 
``consumer payment transaction'' includes this component to define 
those payment transactions that are, by their nature, consumer 
transactions. Under a relevant definition of consumer financial 
products and services in CFPA section 1002(5)(A), a financial product 
or service is a consumer financial product or service when it is 
offered or provided for use by consumers primarily for personal, 
family, or household purposes.\54\ The Proposed Rule would define a 
consumer payment transaction as one that is primarily for personal, 
family, or household purposes, and would define the relevant market 
activity (providing a general-use digital consumer payments 
application) by reference to its use with respect to consumer payment 
transactions. Although a general-use digital consumer payment 
application also could help individuals to make payments that are not 
for personal, family, or household purposes, such as purely commercial 
(or business-to-business) payments, those payments would not fall 
within the proposed definition of ``consumer payment transaction.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 12 U.S.C. 5481(5)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed definition of ``consumer payment 
transaction'' would exclude four types of transfers. First, paragraph 
(A) of the proposed definition would exclude international money 
transfers as defined in Sec.  1090.107(a). In its 2014 international 
money transfer larger participant rulemaking, the CFPB determined that 
the complexities involved in international money transfers, such as 
foreign exchange rates, foreign taxes, and legal, administrative, and 
language complexities, as well as the CFPB's remittances rule, 
justified treating that market as a separate market from the domestic 
money transfer market for purposes of that larger participant rule.\55\ 
In proposing this larger participant rule, the CFPB is not proposing to 
alter the international money transfer larger participant rule. Rather, 
the CFPB is proposing this larger participant rule to define a separate 
market, focused on the use of digital payment technologies to help 
consumers make payment transactions that are not international money 
transfers as defined in the international money transfer larger 
participant rule. Accordingly, the proposed definition of ``consumer 
payment transaction'' would exclude an international money transfer as 
defined in Sec.  1090.107(a). To the extent that nonbank international 
money transfer providers facilitate those transactions, whether through 
a digital application or otherwise,\56\ that activity remains part of 
the international money transfer market, and the CFPB may be able to 
supervise such a nonbank if it meets the larger-participant test in the 
international money transfer larger participant rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 79 FR 56631, 56635 (Sept. 3, 2014). For additional 
information regarding the remittance rule, see CFPB, ``Remittance 
Transfers,'' available at https://www.consumerfinance.gov/compliance/compliance-resources/deposit-accounts-resources/remittance-transfer-rule/ (last visited Oct. 22, 2023).
    \56\ See CFPB, ``Remittance Rule Assessment Report'' (Oct. 2018, 
rv. April 2019) at 143 (describing trends including ``widespread use 
of mobile phones to transfer remittances and the growth of online-
only providers''), available at https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/bcfp_remittance-rule-assessment_report.pdf (last visited 
Oct. 25, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, for clarity, paragraph (B) the proposed definition of 
``consumer payment transaction'' would exclude a transfer of funds by a 
consumer (1) that is linked to the consumer's receipt of a different 
form of funds, such as a transaction for foreign exchange as defined in 
12 U.S.C. 5481(16), or (2) that is excluded from the definition of 
``electronic fund transfer'' under Sec.  1005.3(c)(4) of this chapter. 
Paragraph (1) of this proposed exclusion would clarify, for example, 
that the market as defined in the Proposed Rule does not include 
transactions consumers conduct for the purpose of exchanging one type 
of funds for another, such as exchanges of fiat currencies (i.e., the 
exchange of currency issued by the United States or of a foreign 
government for the currency of a different government), a purchase of a 
crypto-asset using fiat currency, a sale of a crypto-asset in which the 
seller receives fiat currency in return, or the exchange of one type of 
crypto-asset for another type of crypto-asset. Paragraph (2) would 
clarify that transfers of funds the primary purpose of which is the 
purchase or sale of a security or commodity in circumstances described 
in Regulation E section 3(c)(4) and its associated commentary also 
would not qualify as consumer payment transactions for purposes of the 
Proposed Rule.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 12 CFR 1005.3(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, paragraph (C) would exclude a payment transaction conducted 
by a person for the sale or lease of goods or services that a consumer 
selected from an online or physical store or marketplace operated 
prominently in the name of such person or its affiliated company.\58\ 
This exclusion would clarify that, when a consumer selects goods or 
services in a store or website operated in the merchant's name and the 
consumer pays using account or payment credentials stored by the 
merchant who conducts the payment transaction, such a transfer of funds 
generally is not a consumer payment transaction covered by the Proposed 
Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See 12 CFR 1090.101 (definition of ``affiliated company'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This exclusion also would clarify that when a consumer selects 
goods or services in an online marketplace and pays using account or 
payment credentials stored by the online marketplace operator or its 
affiliated company,\59\ such a transfer of funds generally is not a 
consumer payment transaction covered by the Proposed Rule. For such 
transactions to qualify for this exclusion, the funds transfer must be 
for the sale or lease of a good or service the consumer selected from a 
digital platform operated prominently in the name (whether entity or 
trade name) of an online marketplace operator or their affiliated 
company.\60\ However,

[[Page 80204]]

this exclusion does not apply when a consumer uses a payment or account 
credential stored by a general-use digital consumer payment application 
provided by an unaffiliated person to pay for goods or services on the 
merchant's website or an online marketplace. For example, when a 
consumer selects goods or services for purchase or lease on a website 
of a merchant, and then from within that website chooses an 
unaffiliated person's general-use digital consumer payment application 
as a payment method, then paragraph (C) would not exclude the resulting 
consumer payment transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ A common industry definition of an online marketplace 
operator is an entity that engages in certain activities, including 
``[b]ring[ing] together [consumer payment card holders] and 
retailers on an electronic commerce website or mobile application'' 
where ``[i]ts name or brand is: [ ]Displayed prominently on the 
website or mobile application[; ]Displayed more prominently than the 
name and brands of retailers using the Marketplace[; and is] Part of 
the mobile application name or [uniform resource locator.]'' VISA, 
``Visa Core Rules and Visa Product and Service Rules'' (Apr. 15, 
2023) (``VISA Rules''), Rule 5.3.4.1 (defining the criteria for an 
entity to qualify as a ``Marketplace'' for purposes of the VISA 
Rules), available at https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/download/about-visa/visa-rules-public.pdf (last visited Oct. 23, 2023).
    \60\ This aspect of the example is consistent with the 
understanding of some significant payments industry participants as 
to what is considered a digital marketplace. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of this proposed exclusion to the definition of 
``consumer payment transaction'' is to clarify the scope of the 
proposed market and to clarify which transactions count toward the 
proposed threshold in the larger-participant test in proposed Sec.  
1090.109(b). For example, some online marketplace operators may provide 
general-use digital consumer payment applications for consumers to use 
for the purchase or lease of goods or services the consumer selects on 
websites of unaffiliated merchants. Absent the exclusion in paragraph 
(C), the providing of such a general-use digital consumer payment 
application could result in counting all transactions through such an 
application, including for goods and services the consumer selects from 
the online marketplace, toward the larger-participant test threshold in 
proposed Sec.  1090.109(b). Yet the CFPB is not seeking to define a 
market or determine larger-participant status in this rulemaking by 
reference to payment transactions conducted by merchants or online 
marketplaces through their own payment functionalities for their own 
sales transactions. How a merchant or online marketplace conducts 
payments to itself for sales through its own platform raises distinct 
consumer protection concerns from the concerns raised by general-use 
digital consumer payment applications that facilitate consumers' 
payments to third parties. The CFPB therefore believes it appropriate 
to exclude the former type of payment transactions from the market 
defined in the Proposed Rule.
    In this regard, the scope of the term ``consumer payment 
transaction'' is narrower than the CFPB's authority under the CFPA, 
which can extend to payment transactions conducted by merchants or 
online marketplaces for sales through their own platforms under certain 
circumstances. The CFPA defines a consumer financial product or service 
to include ``providing payments or other financial data processing 
products or services to a consumer by any technological means, 
including processing or storing financial or banking data for any 
payment instrument . . . .'' \61\ Such activities generally are 
consumer financial products or services under the CFPA unless a narrow 
exclusion for financial data processing in the context of the direct 
sale of nonfinancial goods or services applies.\62\ That exclusion 
would not apply if a merchant or online marketplace's digital consumer 
application stores, transmits, or otherwise processes payments or 
financial data for any purpose other than initiating a payments 
transaction by the consumer to pay the merchant or online marketplace 
operator for the purchase of a nonfinancial good or service sold 
directly by that merchant or online marketplace operator. Other 
purposes beyond payments for direct sales could include using or 
sharing such data for targeted marketing, data monetization, or 
research purposes. The exclusion also would not apply if an online 
marketplace operator's digital consumer application processes payments 
or other financial data associated with the consumer's purchase of 
goods or services at unaffiliated online or physical stores or third-
party goods or services on the operator's online marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ 12 U.S.C. 5481(15)(A)(vii).
    \62\ ``[A] person shall not be deemed to be a covered person 
with respect to financial data processing solely because the person 
. . . is a merchant, retailer, or seller of any nonfinancial good or 
service who engages in financial data processing by transmitting or 
storing payments data about a consumer exclusively for purpose of 
initiating payments instructions by the consumer to pay such person 
for the purchase of, or to complete a commercial transaction for, 
such nonfinancial good or service sold directly by such person to 
the consumer.'' 12 U.S.C. 5481(15)(A)(vii)(I). The CFPB concludes 
that this narrow exclusion is descriptive of the limited role that 
many merchants play in processing consumer payments or financial 
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, paragraph (D) would exclude an extension of consumer 
credit that is made using a digital application provided by the person 
who is extending the credit or that person's affiliated company. The 
CFPB is proposing this exclusion so that the market definition does not 
encompass consumer lending activities by lenders through their own 
digital applications. In this rulemaking, the CFPB is not proposing to 
define a market for extending consumer credit, as it did, for example, 
in the larger participant rule for the automobile financing market.\63\ 
As a result of this proposed exclusion, for example, a nonbank would 
not be participating in the proposed market simply by providing a 
digital application through which it lends money to consumers to buy 
goods or services. Thus, to the extent consumer credit transactions 
would fall within the proposed definition of consumer payment 
transactions, this would be because the relevant market participant 
engages in covered payment-related activities beyond extending credit 
to the consumer. For example, a nonbank may provide a wallet 
functionality through a digital application that stores payment 
credentials for a credit card through which an unaffiliated depository 
institution or credit union extends consumer credit. The CFPB is 
proposing a market definition that would reach that nonbank covered 
person's activities because their role in the transaction is to help 
the consumer to make a payment, not to themselves extend credit to the 
consumer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ 12 CFR 1090.108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Covered Payment Functionality
    The proposed market definition applies to providing covered payment 
functionalities through a digital application for a consumer's general 
use in making payment transactions. Proposed Sec.  1090.109(a)(2) would 
define two types of payment functionalities as covered payment 
functionalities: a funds transfer functionality and a wallet 
functionality. Proposed Sec.  1090.109(a)(2) would define each of those 
two functionalities as described below.
    A nonbank covered person would be participating in the proposed 
market if its market activity includes only one of the two 
functionalities, or both functionalities. Similarly, a particular 
digital application may provide one or both functionalities. A 
nonbank's level of participation in the proposed market would not be 
based on which functionality is involved; rather, it would be based on 
the annual covered payment transaction volume as defined in proposed 
Sec.  1090.109(b).
    The CFPB proposes to treat these two covered payment 
functionalities as part of a single market for general-use digital 
consumer payment applications. The technological and commercial 
processes these two payment functionalities use to facilitate consumer 
payments may differ in some ways. However, consumers can use both types 
of covered payment functionalities for the same common purposes, such 
as to make payments for retail spending and sending money to friends 
and family. For example, a funds transfer functionality may transfer a 
consumer's funds in a linked stored value account to a merchant to pay 
for goods or services, or to friends or family. Similarly, a wallet 
functionality may transmit a stored payment

[[Page 80205]]

credential to facilitate a consumer's payment to a merchant or to 
friends and family. Indeed, the same nonbank covered person may provide 
a digital application that encompasses both functionalities depending 
on the payment method a consumer chooses. For example, a nonbank 
covered person's digital application may allow the consumer to access a 
wallet functionality to make a payment using a credit card for which a 
third party extends credit, or a funds transfer functionality to make a 
payment from a stored value account the nonbank provides. The role 
these two functionalities play in a single market therefore is driven 
by their common uses, not their specific technological and commercial 
processes.
(A) Funds Transfer Functionality
    The first payment functionality included in the definition in 
covered payment functionality in proposed Sec.  1090.109(a)(2) is a 
funds transfer functionality. Paragraph (A) would define the term 
``funds transfer functionality'' for the purpose of this rule to mean, 
in connection with a consumer payment transaction: (1) receiving funds 
for the purpose of transmitting them; or (2) accepting and transmitting 
payment instructions.\64\ These two types of funds transfer 
functionalities generally describe how nonbanks help to transfer a 
consumer's funds to other persons, sometimes referred to as P2P 
transfers. The nonbank either already holds or receives the consumer's 
funds for the purpose of transferring them, or it transmits the 
consumers payment instructions to another person who does so. Paragraph 
(1), for example, would apply to a nonbank transferring funds it holds 
for the consumer, such as in a stored value account, to another person 
for personal, family, or household purposes. Even if the nonbank 
providing the funds transfer functionality does not hold or receive the 
funds to be transferred, it generally would qualify under paragraph (2) 
by transmitting the consumer's payment instructions to the person that 
does hold or receive the funds for transfer. Paragraph (2), for 
example, would apply to a nonbank that accepts a consumer's instruction 
to send money from the consumer's banking deposit account to another 
person for personal, family, or household purposes, and then transmits 
that instruction to other persons to accomplish the fund transfer. A 
common way a nonbank may engage in such activities is by acting as a 
third-party intermediary to initiate an electronic fund transfer 
through the automated clearinghouse (ACH) network. Another common way 
to do so is to transmit the payment instructions to a partner 
depository institution. However, in some circumstances, a nonbank may 
be able to execute a consumer's payment instructions on its own, such 
as by debiting the consumer's account and crediting the account of the 
friend or family member, without transmitting the payment instructions 
to another person. In those circumstances, the nonbank generally would 
be covered by paragraph (1) because, to conduct the transaction in this 
manner, the nonbank typically would be holding or receiving the funds 
being transferred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ Such funds transfer services are consumer financial 
products or services under the CFPA. See 12 U.S.C. 5481(5)(A) 
(defining ``consumer financial product or service'' to mean a 
financial product or service ``offered or provided for use by 
consumers primarily for personal, family, or household purposes''). 
The CFPA defines a ``financial product or service'' to include 
``engaging in deposit-taking activities, transmitting or exchanging 
funds, or otherwise acting as a custodian of funds or any financial 
instrument for use by or on behalf of a consumer.'' 12 U.S.C. 
5481(15)(A)(iv); see also 12 U.S.C. 5481(29) (defining 
``transmitting or exchanging funds''). The CFPA also defines a 
``financial product or service'' to include generally ``providing 
payments or other financial data processing products or services to 
a consumer by any technological means, including processing or 
storing financial or banking data for any payment instrument,'' 
subject to certain exceptions. 12 U.S.C. 5481(15)(A)(vii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFPB requests comment on the proposed definition of funds 
transfer functionality, and whether it should be modified, and if so, 
how and why.
(B) Wallet Functionality
    The other payment functionality included in the definition in 
covered payment functionality in proposed Sec.  1090.109(a)(1) is a 
wallet functionality. Paragraph (B) would define the term wallet 
functionality as a product or service that: (1) stores account or 
payment credentials, including in encrypted or tokenized form; and (2) 
transmits, routes, or otherwise processes such stored account or 
payment credentials to facilitate a consumer payment transaction.\65\ 
Through this proposed definition, the proposed market would include 
payment functionalities that work together first to store account or 
payment credentials and second, to process such data to facilitate a 
consumer payment transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ The wallet functionality as described here is a consumer 
financial product or service under the CFPA. See 12 U.S.C. 
5481(15)(A)(vii) (defining ``financial product or service'' to 
include ``providing payments or other financial data processing 
products or services to a consumer by any technological means, 
including processing or storing financial or banking data for any 
payment instrument, or through any payments systems or network used 
for processing payments data, including payments made through an 
online banking system or mobile telecommunications network,'' 
subject to certain exceptions); see also 12 U.S.C. 5481(5)(A) 
(defining ``consumer financial product or service'' to mean a 
financial product or service ``offered or provided for use by 
consumers primarily for personal, family, or household purposes'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As indicated above, paragraph (B)(1) of the proposed definition of 
``wallet functionality'' would clarify that ``account or payment 
credentials'' can take the form of encrypted or tokenized data. Storage 
of account or payment credentials in these forms would satisfy the 
first prong of the ``wallet functionality'' definition. For example, 
the first prong would be satisfied by storing an encrypted version of a 
payment account number or a token \66\ that is specifically derived 
from or otherwise associated with a consumer's payment account number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Tokens now are often used for wallets to store a variety of 
payment credentials including network-branded payment cards. See, 
e.g., Manya Sini, ``Visa tokens overtake payments giant's physical 
cards in circulation,'' Reuters.com (Aug. 24, 2022) (describing how 
VISA's token service ``replaces 16-digital Visa account numbers with 
a token that only Visa can unlock, protecting the underlying account 
information.''), available at https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/visa-tokens-overtake-payments-giants-physical-cards-circulation-2022-08-24/ (last visited Oct. 23, 2023); In re 
Mastercard Incorporated, FTC Docket No. C-4795 (May 13, 2023) ]] 24-
32 (describing how payment cards are ``tokenized'' for use digital 
wallets by ``replacing the cardholder's primary account number (PAN) 
[ ] with a different number to protect the PAN during certain stages 
of the [ ] transaction.''), available at https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/mastercard-inc-matter (last visited 
Oct. 23, 2023); American Express, ``American Express Tokenization 
Service,'' available at https://network.americanexpress.com/globalnetwork/products-and-services/security/tokenization-service/ 
(last visited Oct. 23, 2023); Discover Digital Exchange, ``Powering 
digital payment experiences,'' available at https://www.discoverglobalnetwork.com/solutions/technology-payment-platforms/discover-digital-exchange-ddx/ (last visited Oct. 23, 
2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (B)(2) of the proposed definition of ``wallet 
functionality'' would describe the types of processing of stored 
account or payment credentials that would fall within the definition. 
For example, consumers commonly use wallet functionalities provided 
through digital applications to pay for purchases of goods or services 
on merchant websites. To facilitate such a consumer payment 
transaction, a consumer financial product or service may transmit a 
stored payment credential to a merchant, its payment processor, or its 
website designed to accept payment credentials provided by the wallet 
functionality. This type of product or service would be covered by 
paragraph (B)(2).

[[Page 80206]]

    The CFPB requests comment on the proposed definition of the term 
wallet functionality, whether it sufficiently encompasses digital 
wallets in the market today, and whether it should be modified, and if 
so, how and why.
Digital Application
    The proposed market definition applies to providing covered payment 
functionalities through a digital application for a consumer's general 
use in making consumer payment transactions. Proposed Sec.  
1090.109(a)(2) would define the term ``digital application'' as a 
software program accessible to a consumer through a personal computing 
device, including but not limited to a mobile phone, smart watch, 
tablet, laptop computer, or desktop computer.\67\ The proposed 
definition would specify that the term includes a software program, 
whether downloaded to a personal computing device, accessible from a 
personal computing device via a website using an internet browser, or 
activated from a personal computing device using a consumer's biometric 
identifier, such as a fingerprint, palmprint, face, eyes, or voice.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ For purposes of the Proposed Rule, what matters is whether 
the digital application is accessible through a personal computing 
device, not whether a particular payment is made using a computing 
device that a consumer personally owns. For example, if a consumer 
logs into a digital application through a website using a work or 
library computer and makes a consumer payment transaction, the 
transfer would be subject to the Proposed Rule if that digital 
application is one a consumer also may access through a personal 
computing device.
    \68\ For example, some nonbanks allow consumers to use 
interactive voice technology to operate the nonbank's application 
that resides on the phone itself. See, e.g., Lory Seraydarian, 
``Voice Payments: The Future of Payment Technology?'' PlatAI Blog 
(Mar. 7, 2022) (software firm analysis reporting that major P2P 
participants'' allow their customers to use voice commands for peer-
to-peer transfers.''), available at https://plat.ai/blog/voice-payments/ (last visited Oct. 23, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Market participants may provide covered payment functionalities 
through digital applications in many ways. For example, a consumer may 
access a nonbank covered person's covered payment functionality through 
a digital application provided by that nonbank covered person. Or, a 
consumer may access a nonbank covered person's covered payment 
functionality through a digital application provided by an unaffiliated 
third-party such as another nonbank, a bank, or a credit union.\69\ In 
either case, a consumer typically first opens the digital application 
on a personal computing device and follows instructions for associating 
their deposit account, stored value account, or other payment account 
information with the covered payment functionality for use in a future 
consumer payment transaction. Then, when the consumer is ready to 
initiate a payment, the consumer may access the digital application 
again to authorize the payment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ If a nonbank covered person provides a covered payment 
functionality a consumer may access through a digital application 
provided by a bank or credit union, the Proposed Rule would only 
apply to the nonbank. Depository institutions and credit unions are 
not subject to the CFPB's larger participant rules, which rely upon 
authority in CFPA section 1024 that applies to nonbanks. 12 U.S.C. 
5514.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, consumers have many ways to access covered payment 
functionalities through digital applications to initiate consumer 
payment transactions. To make a P2P payment, a consumer may use an 
internet browser or other app on a mobile phone or computer to access a 
nonbank covered person's funds transfer functionality, such as a 
feature to initiate a payment to friends or family or to access a 
general-use bill payment function. The consumer then may direct the 
nonbank covered person to transmit funds to the recipient or the 
consumer may provide payment instructions for the nonbank covered 
person to relay to the person holding the funds to be transferred. Or, 
in an online retail purchase transaction, a consumer may access a 
wallet functionality by clicking on or pressing a payment button on a 
checkout screen on a merchant website. The consumer then may log into 
the digital application or display a biometric identifier to their 
personal computing device to authorize the use of a previously-stored 
payment credential. Or, in an in-person retail purchase transaction, a 
consumer may activate a covered payment functionality by placing their 
personal computing device next to a merchant's retail payment terminal. 
The digital application then may transmit payment instructions or 
payment credentials to a merchant payment processor. For example, a 
mobile phone may transmit such data by using near-field communication 
(NFC) technology built into the mobile phone,\70\ by generating a 
payment-specific quick response (QR) code on the mobile phone screen 
that the consumer displays to the merchant payment terminal, or by 
using the internet, a text messaging system, or other communications 
network accessible through the mobile phone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See generally CFPB Competition Spotlight, supra n.39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through the proposed definition of digital application, the 
Proposed Rule excludes from the proposed market payment transactions 
that do not rely upon use of a digital applications. For example, 
gateway terminals merchants obtain to process the consumer's personal 
card information are not personal computing devices of the consumer. 
Merchants generally select these types of payment processing services, 
which are provided to consumers at the point of sale to pay for the 
merchant's goods or services. Their providers may be participating in a 
market that is distinct in certain ways from a market for general-use 
digital consumer payment applications. In addition, the proposed 
definition of ``digital application'' would not cover the consumer's 
presentment of a debit card, a prepaid card, or a credit card in 
plastic, metallic, or similar form at the point of sale. In using 
physical payment cards at the point of sale, a consumer generally is 
not relying upon a ``digital application'' because the consumer is not 
engaging with software through a personal computing device to complete 
the transaction. However, when a consumer uses the same payment card 
account in a wallet functionality provided through a digital 
application, then those transactions would fall within the market 
definition.
    In addition, there are other examples of payment transactions that 
do not rely upon the use of a digital application, including 
transactions relying upon the in-person payment of physical fiat 
currency (cash), and transactions where a consumer mails or hand 
delivers a paper payment instrument such as a paper check.
    The CFPB requests comment on the proposed definition of ``digital 
application,'' and whether it should be modified, and if so, how and 
why. For example, the CFPB requests comment regarding whether defining 
the term ``digital application'' by reference to software accessible 
through a personal computing device is appropriate, and if so, why, and 
if not, why not and what alternative approach should be used and why.
General Use
    The proposed market definition applies to providing covered payment 
functionalities through a digital application for a consumer's general 
use in making consumer payment transactions. Proposed Sec.  
1090.109(a)(2) would define the term ``general use'' as the absence of 
significant limitations on the purpose of consumer payment transactions 
facilitated by the covered payment functionality provided through the 
digital consumer payment application. In proposing the general

[[Page 80207]]

use qualification in the market definition, the CFPB seeks to confine 
the market definition to those digital payment applications that 
consumers can use for a wide range of purposes. Digital payment 
applications with general use as described in the Proposed Rule can 
serve broad functions for consumers, such as sending funds to friends 
and family, buying a wide range of goods or services at different 
stores, or both. As reflected in the non-exhaustive list of examples 
discussed below, other consumer financial products and services provide 
payment functionalities for more limited purposes. While those other 
products and services also serve important functions for consumers, 
they do not have the same broad use cases for consumers. As a result, 
those products participate in a market or markets distinguishable from 
a market from general-use digital consumer payment applications.
    The proposed definition of general use would clarify that a digital 
consumer payment application that would facilitate person-to-person, or 
peer-to-peer (P2P), transfers of funds would qualify as having general 
use. Even if a payment functionality provided through a digital 
application is limited to P2P payments, and that constitutes a 
limitation on the purpose of payments, that limitation would not be 
significant for purposes of the proposed market definition. For 
example, a P2P application that permits a consumer to send funds to any 
family member, friend, or other person would qualify as general use, 
even if that P2P application could not be used as a payment method at 
checkout with merchants, retailers, or other sellers of goods or 
services. A P2P application also would have general use for purposes of 
the Proposed Rule even if it can only transfer funds to recipients who 
also register with the application provider, or otherwise participate 
in a certain network (sometimes referred to as ``closed loop'' P2P 
systems). Although the network of potential recipients in a closed loop 
system may be limited in certain respects, often any potential 
recipient may have the option of joining such a system (and many 
consumers already may have joined such systems), so the universe of 
potential recipients for such payments often is still broad. Moreover, 
a digital consumer payment application still may have general use even 
when the universe of potential recipients for a funds transfer is 
fixed, such as when a consumer can only make a transfer of funds to 
friends or family located in a prison, jail, or other secure facility. 
Such funds may be available to the recipient for a variety of purposes, 
including to purchase food, toiletries, medical supplies, or phone 
credits while incarcerated, and, if not used by the recipient while 
incarcerated, may revert to an unrestricted account.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See, e.g., CFPB Report, ``Justice-Involved Individuals and 
the Consumer Financial Marketplace'' (Jan. 2022) at sec. 3.1 (n.87 
describing uses of these types of funds transfers) & sec. 4.1 
(describing how, as observed in a CFPB enforcement action and an 
investigative report on prison release cards, ``[w]hen released, 
people exiting jail receive money they had when arrested, and 
prisons disburse the balance of a person's commissary account, 
including wages from prison jobs, public benefits, and money sent by 
friends and family''), available at https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_jic_report_2022-01.pdf 
(last visited Oct. 23, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To provide clarity as to the proposed market definition, the 
proposed definition of general use would include examples of 
limitations that would be significant for purposes of the proposal, 
such that a covered payment functionality offered through a digital 
consumer payment application with such limitations would not have 
general use.\72\ The examples would illustrate some types of digital 
consumer payment applications that would not have general use. The list 
of examples is not exhaustive, and other types of digital consumer 
payment applications would not have general use to the extent they 
cannot be used for a wide range of purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ The Proposed Rule includes these examples to illustrate the 
scope of the term ``general use'' in the Proposed Rule, and thus the 
scope of the proposed market definition. The examples are not a 
statement of the CFPB's views regarding the scope of its authority 
over consumer financial products and services under the CFPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, some payment functionalities may be provided through 
two different digital consumer applications. For example, from a 
merchant's ecommerce digital application, a consumer may click on a 
payment button that links to a third-party general-use digital consumer 
payment application, where the consumer authenticates their identity 
and provides payment instructions or otherwise authorizes the payment. 
Even if the merchant's digital application would not itself qualify as 
having general use, the consumer's use of the third-party general-use 
digital consumer payment application would still constitute covered 
market activity with respect to the third-party provider.
    The first example of a payment functionality that would not have 
general use, in paragraph (A) of the proposed definition of general 
use, would be a digital consumer payment application whose payment 
functionality is used solely to purchase or lease a specific type of 
services, goods, or property, such as transportation, lodging, food, an 
automobile, a dwelling or real property, or a consumer financial 
products and service. For example, when a consumer uses a payment 
functionality in a digital application for a consumer financial product 
or service to pay for that consumer financial product or service, such 
as by providing payment card information to a credit monitoring app to 
pay for credit monitoring services, this limited purpose for that 
payment functionality would not have general use under the Proposed 
Rule.\73\ Paragraph (A) of the proposed definition specifies these 
examples of significant limitations, such that a payment functionality 
provided through digital consumer payment application with these 
limitations would not have general use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ The term ``consumer financial product or service'' is 
defined in CFPA section 1002(5) and includes a range of consumer 
financial products and services including those in markets that the 
CFPB supervises, described earlier in the Proposed Rule, as well as 
other consumer financial products and services outside of supervised 
markets over which the CFPB generally has enforcement and market 
monitoring authority. See generally 12 U.S.C. 5481(5) (definition of 
``consumer financial product or service'') & 12 U.S.C. 5481(15) 
(definition of ``financial product or service'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, as indicated in paragraph (B) of the proposed definition of 
general use, accounts that are expressly excluded from the definition 
of ``prepaid account'' in paragraphs (A), (C), and (D) of Sec.  
1005.2(b)(3)(ii) of Regulation E,\74\ also would not have general use 
for purposes of the Proposed Rule. Those provisions in Regulation E 
exclude certain tax-advantaged health medical spending accounts, 
dependent care spending accounts, transit or parking reimbursement 
arrangements, closed-loop accounts for spending at certain military 
facilities, and many types of gift certificates and gift cards. While 
these types of accounts may support payments through digital 
applications with varied purposes to different types of recipients, the 
accounts remain sufficiently restricted as to the purpose to warrant 
exclusion from the proposed market here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ 12 CFR 1005.2(b)(3)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, as indicated in paragraph (C), a payment functionality 
provided through a digital consumer payment application that solely 
supports payments to pay a specific debt or type of debt or repayment 
of an extension of consumer credit does not have general use. For 
example, a consumer mortgage lender's mobile app or website may provide 
a functionality that allows a

[[Page 80208]]

consumer to pay a loan. Or a debt collector's website may provide a 
means for a consumer to pay a debt. These digital consumer payment 
applications have a use that is significantly limited, to only pay a 
specific debt or type of debt. In general, digital applications that 
solely support payments to specific lenders, loan servicers, and debt 
collectors would not be within the proposed market definition.\75\ The 
CFPB considers such digital applications generally to be more part of 
the markets for consumer lending, loan servicing, and debt collection. 
The CFPB has issued separate larger participant rules for such markets 
and CFPA section 1024(a) also grants the CFPB supervisory authority 
over participants in certain lending markets, including mortgage 
lending, private student lending, and payday lending. In addition, 
other digital applications may only help a consumer to pay certain 
other types of debts, such as taxes or other amounts owed to the 
government, including fines. Under this proposed example, those payment 
functionalities provided through those applications also would not have 
general use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ By contrast, as noted in the section-by-section analysis of 
the exclusion in paragraph (C) of the definition of a ``consumer 
payment transaction,'' if a consumer uses a general-use digital 
consumer payment application as a method of making a payment to such 
a payee, that general-use digital consumer payment application would 
be participating in the market for those consumer payment 
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, as indicated in paragraph (D), a payment functionality 
provided through a digital application that solely helps consumers to 
divide up charges and payments for a specific type of goods or services 
would be excluded. Some payment applications, for example, may be 
focused solely on helping consumers to split a restaurant bill. This 
example is a corollary of the example in paragraph (A). Since a payment 
functionality limited to paying for food would not have general use 
under paragraph (A), paragraph (D) would clarify that neither would a 
payment functionality that enables splitting a bill for food have 
general use.
    The CFPB requests comment on the proposed definition of general use 
and examples of significant limitations that take a payment 
functionality provided through a digital consumer application out of 
the general use category. The CFPB also requests comment on whether the 
examples of significant limitations should be changed or clarified, and 
whether additional examples of significant limitations should be 
included, and if so, what examples and why.
State
    Proposed Sec.  1090.109(a) would define the term ``State'' to mean 
any State, territory, or possession of the United States; the District 
of Columbia; the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; or any political 
subdivision thereof. For consistency, the CFPB is proposing to use the 
same definition of ``State'' as used in the international money 
transfer larger participant rule, Sec.  1090.107(a), which drew its 
definition from Regulation E subpart A.\76\ The CFPB requests comment 
on the proposed definition of State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See International Money Transfer Larger Participant Final 
Rule, 79 FR 56641.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

109(b) Test To Define Larger Participants
    Proposed Sec.  1090.109(b) would set forth a test to determine 
which nonbank covered persons are larger participants in a market for 
general-use digital consumer payment applications as described in 
proposed Sec.  1090.109(a). Under the proposed test, a nonbank covered 
person would be a larger participant if it meets each of two criteria 
set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2) of proposed Sec.  1090.109(b) 
respectively. First, paragraph (1) specifies that the nonbank covered 
person must provide annual covered consumer payment transaction volume 
as defined in paragraph (3) of proposed Sec.  1090.109(b) of at least 
five million transactions. Second, paragraph (2) specifies that the 
nonbank covered person must not be a small business concern based on 
the applicable Small Business Administration (SBA) size standard listed 
in 13 CFR part 121 for its primary industry as described in 13 CFR 
121.107. Paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of this proposed definition are 
analyzed below.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ Prior to issuing this proposal, the CFPB conducted analysis 
of data sources as described below and in part V and part VI to 
identify likely market participants, and, to the extent of available 
data, to: (1) to inform its general understanding of the market; 
and, relatedly, (2) to estimate the level of market activity by 
market participants, the degree to which market participants would 
be small entities, and the level of market activity by larger 
participants. These estimates therefore rely to some degree on 
preliminary entity-level analysis that is not dispositive of whether 
the CFPB would ever seek to initiate supervisory activity at a given 
entity or whether, in the event of a person's assertion that it is 
not a larger participant, the person would be found to be a larger 
participant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Criteria
    The CFPB has broad discretion in choosing criteria for assessing 
whether a nonbank covered person is a larger participant of a 
market.\78\ The CFPB selects criteria that provide ``a reasonable 
indication of a person's level of market participation and impact on 
consumers.'' \79\ As the CFPB has noted in previous larger participant 
rulemakings, for any given market, there may be ``several criteria, 
used alone or in combination, that could be viewed as reasonable 
alternatives.'' \80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ See, e.g., 77 FR 42887 (consumer reporting larger 
participant rule describing such discretion); 77 FR 65785 (same, in 
consumer debt collection larger participant rule).
    \79\ 77 FR 42887 (consumer reporting larger participant rule); 
see also 80 FR 37513 (automobile financing larger participant rule 
describing how aggregate annual originations are a ``meaningful 
measure'' of such participation and impact); 78 FR 73393-94 (same, 
for account volume criterion in student loan servicing larger 
participant rule).
    \80\ 77 FR 65785 (consumer debt collection larger participant 
rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Here, the CFPB is proposing to combine the two criteria described 
above: the annual covered consumer payment transaction volume and the 
size of the entity by reference to SBA size standards. The Proposed 
Rule's larger-participant test would combine these criteria as follows: 
a nonbank covered person would be a larger participant if its annual 
covered consumer payment transaction volume exceeded the proposed 
threshold, discussed in the section-by-section analysis further below, 
and, during the same time period (i.e., the preceding calendar year), 
it was not a small business concern.
    The first criterion would be based on the number of consumer 
payment transactions. Specifically, proposed Sec.  1090.109(b)(3) would 
define the term ``annual covered consumer payment transaction volume'' 
as the sum of the number of the consumer payment transactions that the 
nonbank covered person and its affiliated companies facilitated by 
providing general-use digital consumer payment applications in the 
preceding calendar year.\81\ This is an appropriate criterion for a 
market defined by reference to products that facilitate certain 
consumer payments. Each transaction counted under this criterion also 
generally is a payment. In that way, a transaction is essentially a 
well-understood unit of market activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ Under the CFPA, the activities of affiliated companies are 
to be aggregated for purposes of computing activity levels in larger 
participant rules. See 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(B), (3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As in the CFPB's international money transfer larger participant 
rule, here the number of transactions also reflects the extent of 
interactions between the nonbank covered person providing the in-market 
consumer financial product or service. Each one-time consumer payment 
transaction typically results from a single interaction with at least

[[Page 80209]]

one consumer.\82\ And, in the case of recurring consumer payment 
transactions, consumers also have at least one interaction with the 
covered persons in the market. The number of transactions also is a 
common indicator of market participation. State regulators, for 
example, require money transmitters to report this metric.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ See, e.g., 79 FR 56641 (international money transfer larger 
participant rule noting that the absolute number of transactions 
``reflects the extent of interactions'' between the provider and the 
consumer because ``each transfer represents a single interaction 
with at least one consumer.'').
    \83\ See generally NMLS, ``Money Services Business Call 
Report,'' available at https://mortgage.nationwidelicensingsystem.org/slr/common/Pages/MoneyServicesBusinessesCallReport.aspx (last visited Oct. 23, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFPB considered proposing different criteria, such as the 
dollar value of transactions or the annual receipts from market 
activity. However, it is not proposing either of those alternatives. 
First, the proposed market includes digital wallets which often are 
used for consumer retail spending, which can grow in amount through 
inflation. For this market, a dollar value criterion may become 
affected by inflation or other factors. In addition, as discussed in 
the impacts analyses in parts V and VI, some of the data sources the 
CFPB relied upon in formulating the Proposed Rule may be overinclusive 
by including certain payments that are not within the market defined in 
the Proposed Rule, such as certain business-to-business payments. Those 
payments may have higher dollar values. By proposing number of 
transactions as a criterion, the Proposed Rule is less affected by 
those data distortions. At the same time, in general, a higher number 
of transactions also may often comprise a higher dollar value of 
transactions.
    With respect to annual receipts, that data is less available, 
especially for market participants that are not publicly traded or that 
do not file call reports on money transmission at the State level. In 
addition, in the context of the market at issue in the Proposed Rule, 
an annual receipts criterion could miss significant market 
participation and consumer impacts, such as where a provider is 
subsidizing a product or otherwise not earning significant per-
transaction revenues. For example, when a consumer links their deposit 
account directly to a general-use digital consumer payment application, 
the provider may receive lower revenue for funds sent to friends and 
family, compared with paying a merchant or using a network branded 
payment card (where there is an interchange fee that may provide a 
source of revenue). Yet, the risks to and impact on the consumer may be 
just as significant from payments they make to individuals from a 
linked deposit account.
    As noted above, the CFPB is proposing a second criterion that also 
must be satisfied for a nonbank covered person to be a larger 
participant, in addition to the annual covered payment volume 
criterion. Under the second criterion, the nonbank must not be a 
``small business concern'' as that term is defined by section 3(a) of 
the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632(a), and implemented by the SBA 
under 13 CFR part 121, or any successor provisions. Thus, under the 
Proposed Rule, an entity would be a small business concern if its size 
were at or below the SBA standard listed in 13 CFR part 121 for its 
primary industry as described in 13 CFR 121.107.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ In addition, under the SBA's regulations, a concern's size 
is measured by aggregating the relevant size metric across 
affiliates. See 13 CFR 121.103(a)(6) (``In determining the concern's 
size, the SBA counts the receipts, employees, or other measure of 
size of the concern whose size is at issue and all of its domestic 
and foreign affiliates, regardless of whether the affiliates are 
organized for profit.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFPB is proposing this second criterion because it does not 
seek to use this rulemaking as a means of expending its limited 
supervisory resources to examine small business concerns. The consumer 
digital payments applications market is potentially broad and dynamic, 
with rapid technological developments and new entrants. But many well-
known market participants have large business operations that have an 
impact on millions of consumers. In light of its resources, the CFPB 
believes that it would be preferable to focus on larger entities, 
instead of requiring all entities with an annual covered consumer 
payment transaction volume over five million to be subject to 
supervisory review under the Proposed Rule. If a particular nonbank 
covered person were a small business concern participating in this 
market in a manner that posed risks to consumers, the CFPB has 
authority to pursue risk-based supervision of such an entity pursuant 
to CFPA section 1024(a)(1)(C).\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(C). See generally 12 CFR part 1091 
(regulations implementing CFPA section 1024(a)(1)(C)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFPB requests comment on its proposed criteria, including 
whether, instead of basing the annual volume criterion described above 
on number of consumer payment transactions, it should be based on a 
different metric, such as the dollar value of consumer payment 
transactions, and, if so, why.
Threshold
    Under the Proposed Rule, a nonbank covered person would be a larger 
participant in the market for general-use digital consumer payment 
applications if the nonbank covered person satisfies two criteria. 
First, it must facilitate an ``annual covered consumer payment 
transaction volume,'' as defined in proposed Sec.  1090.109(b)(3) and 
discussed above, of at least five million transactions. As explained in 
proposed Sec.  1090.109(b)(3)(i) and discussed above, the volume is 
aggregated across affiliated companies. Thus, the proposed threshold 
includes the aggregate annual volume of both consumer-to-consumer or 
consumer-to-business transactions facilitated by all general-use 
digital consumer payment applications provided by the nonbank covered 
person and its affiliated companies in the preceding year.\86\ Second, 
under proposed Sec.  1090.109(b)(2) and explained above, the CFPB also 
proposes to exclude from larger-participant status any entity in the 
proposed market that is a small business concern based on applicable 
SBA size standards.\87\ The CFPB

[[Page 80210]]

believes that this proposed threshold and the proposed small entity 
exclusion, discussed above, are a reasonable means of defining larger 
participants in this market.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ The CFPB notes that the available data do not always 
conform to the precise market scope of covered consumer payment 
transactions. For example, the data do not always distinguish 
between transactions in which a business sent funds, which would not 
be covered consumer payment transactions, from transactions in which 
a consumer sent funds. In addition, in some cases the data may 
include funds a consumer transfers between one deposit or stored 
value account and another, both of which belong to the consumer. The 
current analysis includes transaction volume broadly defined, and 
the CFPB cannot distinguish between this overall activity and 
covered market activity (to the extent they differ). Therefore, the 
current analysis may be an overestimate of covered market activity 
and larger-participant status of providers of general-use digital 
consumer payment applications subject to the larger-participant 
threshold.
    \87\ As discussed above and below, the exclusion would apply to 
any nonbank that, together with its affiliated companies, is a small 
business concern based on the applicable SBA size standard listed in 
13 CFR part 121 for its primary industry as described in 13 CFR 
121.107. The SBA defines size standards using North American 
Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes. The CFPB believes that 
many--but not all--entities in the proposed market for general-use 
digital consumer payment applications are likely classified in NAICS 
code 522320, ``Financial Transactions Processing, Reserve, and 
Clearinghouse Activities,'' or NAICS code 522390, ``Other Activities 
Related to Credit Intermediation.'' Entities associated with NAICS 
code 522320 that have $47 million or less in annual receipts are 
currently defined by the SBA as small business concerns; for NAICS 
code 522390, the size standard is $28.5 million. However, other 
entities that the CFPB believes to be operating in the proposed 
market may be classified in other NAICS codes industries that use 
different standards, including non-revenue-based SBA size standards, 
such as the number of employees. While the CFPB has data to estimate 
the SBA size status of some market participants, such as publicly-
traded companies, the CFPB lacks data sufficient to estimate the SBA 
size status of some market participants. See SBA, Table of Small 
Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry 
Classification System Codes, effective March 17, 2023, Sector 52 
(Finance and Insurance), available at https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards (last visited Oct. 26, 2023).
    \88\ The CFPB has identified approximately 190 entities from 
available data that provide general-use digital consumer payment 
applications and may be subject to the Proposed Rule. Of those 
entities, the CFPB has data on about half sufficient to estimate 
larger-participant status, including whether those entities would be 
subject to the small business exclusion built into the larger-
participant test. The estimate that approximately 17 entities would 
be larger participants is based on the set of entities for which the 
CFPB has sufficient information to estimate larger participant 
status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFPB estimates that the proposed threshold would bring within 
the CFPB's supervisory authority approximately 17 entities,\89\ about 9 
percent of all known nonbank covered persons in the market for general-
use digital consumer payment applications.\90\ The CFPB notes at the 
outset that this is a rough estimate because the available data on 
entities operating in the proposed market for general-use digital 
consumer payment applications is incomplete.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ In developing this estimate of 17 entities, the CFPB 
excluded entities where either (1) available information indicates 
that the small entity exclusion applies or (2) the CFPB lacks 
sufficient information regarding the entity's size to assess whether 
the small entity exclusion applies.
    \90\ The CFPB based its market estimates on data from several 
sources. The CFPB obtained transaction and revenue data from six 
technology platforms offering payment services through a CFPB 
request pursuant to CFPA section 1022(c)(4). See ``CFPB Orders Tech 
Giants to Turn Over Information on their Payment System Plans,'' 
(Oct. 21, 2021), available at https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-orders-tech-giants-to-turn-over-information-on-their-payment-system-plans/ (last visited Oct. 23, 2023). The CFPB 
was also able to access nonpublic transaction and revenue data for 
potential larger participants from the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing 
System & Registry (NMLS), a centralized licensing database used by 
many States to manage their license authorities with respect to 
various consumer financial industries, including money transmitters. 
Specifically, the CFPB accessed quarterly 2022 and 2023 filings from 
nonbank money transmitters in the Money Services Businesses (MSB) 
Call Reports data (for a description of the types of data reported 
in MSB call reports, see https://mortgage.nationwidelicensingsystem.org/slr/common/Pages/MoneyServicesBusinessesCallReport.aspx (last visited Oct. 23, 
2023)). Additionally, the CFPB compiled a list of likely market 
participants, as well as transaction and revenue data where 
available, from several industry sources (including Elliptic 
Enterprises Limited) and various public sources including the CFPB's 
Prepaid Card Agreement Database, available at https://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/prepaid-accounts/search-agreements (last visited Oct. 23, 2023), company websites, press 
releases, and annual report filings with the U.S. Securities and 
Exchange Commission.
    \91\ The CFPB's estimate that approximately 190 entities are 
participating in the market may be an underestimate because, for 
certain entities, the CFPB lacks sufficient information to assess 
whether they provide a general-use digital consumer payment 
application. In addition, for some entities that are among the 
approximately 190 participants in the market, the CFPB lacks 
sufficient information to assess whether certain products they offer 
constitute a general-use digital consumer payment application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFPB anticipates that the proposed annual covered consumer 
payment transaction volume threshold of five million would allow the 
CFPB to supervise market participants that represent a substantial 
portion of the market for general-use digital consumer payment 
applications and have a significant impact on consumers. Available data 
indicates that the market for general-use digital consumer payment 
applications is highly concentrated, with a few entities that 
facilitate hundreds of millions or billions of consumer payment 
transactions annually, and a much larger number of firms facilitating 
fewer transactions. The CFPB believes that a threshold of five million 
is reasonable, in part, because it would enable the CFPB to cover in 
its nonbank supervision program both the very largest providers of 
general-use digital consumer payment applications as well as a range of 
other providers of general-use digital consumer payment applications 
that play an important role in the marketplace. Further, certain 
populations of consumers, including more vulnerable consumers, may not 
transact with the very largest providers and instead may transact with 
the range of other providers that exceed the five million transaction 
threshold.
    According to the CFPB's estimates, the approximately 17 providers 
of general-use digital consumer payment applications that meet the 
proposed threshold collectively facilitated about 12.8 billion 
transactions in 2021, with a total dollar value of about $1.7 trillion. 
The CFPB estimates that these nonbanks are responsible for 
approximately 88 percent of known transactions in the nonbank market 
for general-use digital consumer payment applications.\92\ At the same 
time, this threshold would likely subject to the CFPB's supervisory 
authority only entities that can reasonably be considered larger 
participants of the market defined in the Proposed Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ See supra n.86-n.91. The 88 percent estimate is calculated 
among all of the entities for which the CFPB has transaction 
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Sec.  1090.109(b)(3)(i) also would clarify how the 
activities of affiliated companies of the nonbank covered person are 
included in the test when the affiliated companies also participate in 
the proposed market. It provides that, in aggregating transactions 
across affiliated companies, an individual consumer payment transaction 
would only be counted once even if more than one affiliated company 
facilitated the transaction. It also provides that the annual covered 
consumer payment transaction volumes of the nonbank covered person and 
its affiliated companies are aggregated for the entire preceding 
calendar year, even if the affiliation did not exist for the entire 
calendar year.
    Because the general-use digital consumer payment applications 
market has evolved rapidly and market participants can grow quickly, 
the CFPB also is not proposing a test that is based on averaging 
multiple years of market activity. As a result, if an entity has less 
than the threshold amount for one or more calendar years but exceeds 
the threshold amount in the most recent calendar year, it would be a 
larger participant. This will ensure that the CFPB can supervise 
nonbanks that quickly become larger participants, without waiting 
several years.
    The CFPB also is considering a lower or higher threshold. For 
example, an annual covered consumer payment transaction volume 
threshold of one million might allow the CFPB to supervise 
approximately 19 entities, still representing approximately 88 percent 
of activity in this market.\93\ Lowering the threshold would not 
substantially increase the number of entities subject to supervision, 
in part because many entities that exceed a lower threshold would be 
excluded as small entities, and would result in only a marginal 
increase in market coverage. In comparison, the CFPB estimates that an 
annual covered consumer payment transaction volume threshold of 10 
million would allow the CFPB to supervise approximately 14 entities, 
representing approximately 87 percent of activity in this market.\94\ 
However, at this higher threshold the CFPB would not be able to 
supervise as varied a mix of nonbank larger participants that, as 
discussed above, have a substantial impact on the full spectrum of 
consumers in the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ See id. & supra n.86-n.91.
    \94\ See id. & supra n.86-n.91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFPB seeks comment, including suggestions of alternatives on 
the proposed threshold for defining larger participants of the market 
for general-use digital consumer payment

[[Page 80211]]

applications as defined in the Proposed Rule.

V. Dodd-Frank Act Section 1022(b) Analysis

A. Overview

    The CFPB is considering potential benefits, costs, and impacts of 
the Proposed Rule.\95\ The CFPB requests comment on the preliminary 
analysis presented below as well as submissions of additional data that 
could inform the CFPB's analysis of the costs, benefits, and impacts of 
the Proposed Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ Specifically, 12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(2)(A) calls for the CFPB to 
consider the potential benefits and costs of a regulation to 
consumers and covered persons, including the potential reduction of 
access by consumers to consumer financial products or services, the 
impact on depository institutions and credit unions with $10 billion 
or less in total assets as described in 12 U.S.C. 5516, and the 
impact on consumers in rural areas. In addition, 12 U.S.C. 
5512(b)(2)(B) directs the CFPB to consult, before and during the 
rulemaking, with appropriate prudential regulators or other Federal 
agencies, regarding consistency with objectives those agencies 
administer. The manner and extent to which the provisions of 12 
U.S.C. 5512(b)(2) apply to a rulemaking of this kind that does not 
establish standards of conduct are unclear. Nevertheless, to inform 
this rulemaking more fully, the CFPB performed the analysis and 
consultations described in those provisions of the CFPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Proposed Rule would define a category of nonbank covered 
persons that would be subject to the CFPB's nonbank supervision program 
pursuant to CFPA section 1024(a)(1)(B). The proposed category would 
include ``larger participants'' of a market for ``general-use digital 
consumer payment applications'' described in the Proposed Rule. 
Participation in this market would be measured on the basis of 
aggregate annual transactions, defined in the Proposed Rule as ``annual 
covered consumer payment transaction volume.'' If a nonbank covered 
person, together with its affiliated companies, has an annual covered 
consumer payment transaction volume (measured for the preceding 
calendar year) of at least five million and is not a small business 
concern, it would be a larger participant in the market for general-use 
digital consumer payment applications. As prescribed by existing Sec.  
1090.102, any nonbank covered person that qualifies as a larger 
participant would remain a larger participant until two years after the 
first day of the tax year in which the person last met the larger-
participant test.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ 12 CFR 1090.102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Potential Benefits and Costs to Consumers and Covered Persons

    This analysis considers the benefits, costs, and impacts of the key 
provisions of the Proposed Rule against a baseline that includes the 
CFPB's existing rules defining larger participants in certain 
markets.\97\ Many States have supervisory programs relating to money 
transfers, which may consider aspects of consumer financial protection 
law. However, at present, there is no Federal program for supervision 
of nonbank covered persons in the market for general-use digital 
consumer payment applications with respect to Federal consumer 
financial law compliance. The Proposed Rule extends the CFPB's 
supervisory authority to cover larger participants of the defined 
market for general-use digital consumer payment applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ The CFPB has discretion in any rulemaking to choose an 
appropriate scope of analysis with respect to potential benefits and 
costs and an appropriate baseline. The CFPB, as a matter of 
discretion, has chosen to describe a broader range of potential 
effects to inform the rulemaking more fully.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFPB notes at the outset that limited data are available with 
which to quantify the potential benefits, costs, and impacts of the 
Proposed Rule. As described above, the CFPB has utilized various 
sources for quantitative information on the number of market 
participants, their annual revenue, and their number and dollar volume 
of transactions.\98\ However, the CFPB lacks detailed information about 
their rate of compliance with Federal consumer financial law and about 
the range of, and costs of, compliance mechanisms used by market 
participants. Further, as noted above in the section-by-section 
analysis of the proposed threshold, the CFPB lacks sufficient 
information on a substantial number of known market participants 
necessary to estimate their larger-participant status.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ See supra n.90.
    \99\ As stated above, the CFPB estimates that approximately 190 
entities operate in the market for providing general-use digital 
consumer payment applications defined in the Proposed Rule. Of those 
entities, the CFPB has data on roughly half sufficient to estimate 
larger-participant status, including whether those entities would be 
subject to the exclusion for small business concerns; approximately 
17 of those would be larger participants under the proposed larger-
participant test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of these data limitations, this analysis generally 
provides a qualitative discussion of the benefits, costs, and impacts 
of the Proposed Rule. General economic principles, together with the 
limited data that are available, provided insight into these benefits, 
costs, and impacts. Where possible, the CFPB has made quantitative 
estimates based on these principles and data as well as on its 
experience of undertaking supervision in other markets.
    The discussion below describes three categories of potential 
benefits and costs. First, the Proposed Rule, if adopted, would 
authorize the CFPB's supervision of larger participants of a market for 
general-use digital consumer payment applications. Larger participants 
of the proposed market might respond to the possibility of supervision 
by changing their systems and conduct, and those changes might result 
in costs, benefits, or other impacts. Second, if the CFPB undertakes 
supervisory activity of specific providers of general-use digital 
consumer payment applications, those entities may incur costs from 
responding to supervisory activity, and the results of these individual 
supervisory activities might also produce benefits and costs. Third, 
the CFPB analyzes the costs that might be associated with entities' 
efforts to assess whether they would qualify as larger participants 
under the rule.
1. Benefits and Costs of Responses to the Possibility of Supervision
    The Proposed Rule would subject larger participants of a market for 
general-use digital consumer payment applications to the possibility of 
CFPB supervision. That the CFPB would be authorized to undertake 
supervisory activities with respect to a nonbank covered person who 
qualified as a larger participant would not necessarily mean that the 
CFPB would in fact undertake such activities regarding that covered 
person in the near future. Rather, supervision of any particular larger 
participant as a result of this rulemaking would be probabilistic in 
nature. For example, the CFPB would examine certain larger participants 
on a periodic or occasional basis. The CFPB's decisions about 
supervision would be informed, as applicable, by the factors set forth 
in CFPA section 1024(b)(2),\100\ relating to the size and transaction 
volume of individual participants, the risks their consumer financial 
products and services pose to consumers, the extent of State consumer 
protection oversight, and other factors the CFPB may determine are 
relevant. Each entity that believed it qualified as a larger 
participant would know that it might be supervised and might gauge, 
given its circumstances, the likelihood that the CFPB would initiate an 
examination or other supervisory activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ 12 U.S.C. 5514(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The prospect of potential CFPB supervisory activity could create an 
incentive for larger participants to allocate additional resources and 
attention to compliance with Federal consumer financial law, 
potentially leading to an increase in the level of

[[Page 80212]]

compliance. They might anticipate that by doing so (and thereby 
decreasing risk to consumers), they could decrease the likelihood of 
their actually being subject to supervisory activities as the CFPB 
evaluated the factors outlined above. In addition, an actual 
examination would be likely to reveal any past or present 
noncompliance, which the CFPB could seek to correct through supervisory 
activity or, in some cases, enforcement actions. Larger participants 
might therefore judge that the prospect of supervision increases the 
potential consequences of noncompliance with Federal consumer financial 
law, and they might seek to decrease that risk by taking steps to 
identify and cure or mitigate any noncompliance.
    The CFPB believes it is likely that many market participants would 
increase compliance in response to the CFPB's supervisory activity 
authorized by the Proposed Rule. However, because finalization of the 
Proposed Rule itself would not require any provider of general-use 
digital consumer payment applications to alter its conduct, any 
estimate of the amount of increased compliance would require both an 
estimate of current compliance levels and a prediction of market 
participants' behavior in response to a final rule. The data that the 
CFPB currently has do not support a specific quantitative estimate or 
prediction. But, to the extent that nonbank entities allocate resources 
to increasing their compliance in response to the Proposed Rule, that 
response would result in both benefits and costs.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ Another approach to considering the benefits, costs, and 
impacts of the Proposed Rule would be to focus almost entirely on 
the supervision-related costs for larger participants and omit a 
broader consideration of the benefits and costs of increased 
compliance. As noted above, the CFPB has, as a matter of discretion, 
chosen to describe a broader range of potential effects to inform 
the rulemaking more fully.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benefits From Increased Compliance
    Increased compliance with Federal consumer financial laws by larger 
participants in the market for general-use digital consumer payment 
applications would be beneficial to consumers who use general-use 
digital payment applications. Increasing the rate of compliance with 
Federal consumer financial laws would benefit consumers and the 
consumer financial market by providing more of the protections mandated 
by those laws.
    The CFPB would be examining for compliance with applicable 
provisions of Federal consumer financial laws, including the Electronic 
Fund Transfer Act and its implementing Regulation E, as well as the 
privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. In addition, the CFPB 
would be examining for whether larger participants of the market for 
general-use digital consumer payment applications engage in unfair, 
deceptive, or abusive acts or practices.\102\ Conduct that does not 
violate an express prohibition of another Federal consumer financial 
law may nonetheless constitute an unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or 
practice. To the extent that any provider of general-use digital 
consumer payment applications is currently engaged in any unfair, 
deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, the cessation of the unlawful 
act or practice would benefit consumers. Providers of general-use 
digital consumer payment applications might improve policies and 
procedures in response to possible supervision in order to avoid 
engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ 12 U.S.C. 5531.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The possibility of CFPB supervision also may help make incentives 
to comply with Federal consumer financial laws more consistent between 
the likely larger participants and banks and credit unions, which are 
subject to Federal supervision with respect to Federal consumer 
financial laws. Although some nonbanks are already subject to State 
supervision, introducing the possibility of Federal supervision could 
encourage nonbanks that are likely larger participants to devote 
additional resources to compliance. It could also help ensure that the 
benefits of Federal oversight reach consumers who do not have ready 
access to bank-provided general-use digital consumer payment 
applications.
Costs of Increased Compliance
    To the extent that nonbank larger participants would decide to 
increase resources dedicated to compliance in response to the 
possibility of increased supervision, the entities would bear any cost 
of any changes to their systems, protocols, or personnel. Whether and 
to what extent entities would increase resources dedicated to 
compliance and/or pass those costs to consumers would depend not only 
on the entities' current practices and the changes they decide to make, 
but also on market conditions. The CFPB lacks detailed information with 
which to predict the extent to which increased costs would be borne by 
providers or passed on to consumers, to predict how providers might 
respond to higher costs, or to predict how consumers might respond to 
increased prices.
2. Benefits and Costs of Individual Supervisory Activities
    In addition to the responses of market participants anticipating 
supervision, the possible consequences of the Proposed Rule would 
include the responses to and effects of individual examinations or 
other supervisory activity that the CFPB might conduct in the market 
for general-use digital consumer payment applications.
Benefits of Supervisory Activities
    Supervisory activity could provide several types of benefits. For 
example, as a result of supervisory activity, the CFPB and an entity 
might uncover compliance deficiencies indicating harm or risks of harm 
to consumers. In its supervision and examination program, the CFPB 
generally prepares a report of each examination. The CFPB would share 
examination findings with the entity because one purpose of supervision 
is to inform the entity of problems detected by examiners. Thus, for 
example, an examination might find evidence of widespread noncompliance 
with Federal consumer financial law, or it might identify specific 
areas where an entity has inadvertently failed to comply, or it may 
identify weaknesses in compliance management systems including policies 
and procedures. These examples are only illustrative of the kinds of 
information an examination might identify.
    Detecting and informing entities about such problems should be 
beneficial to consumers. When the CFPB notifies an entity about risks 
associated with an aspect of its activities, the entity is expected to 
adjust its practices to reduce those risks. That response may result in 
increased compliance with Federal consumer financial law, with benefits 
like those described above. Or it may avert a violation that would have 
occurred if CFPB supervision did not detect the risk promptly. The CFPB 
may also inform entities about risks posed to consumers that fall short 
of violating the law. Action to reduce those risks would also be a 
benefit to consumers.
    Given the obligations providers of general-use digital consumer 
payment applications have under Federal consumer financial law and the 
existence of efforts to enforce such law, the results of CFPB 
supervision also may benefit providers under supervision by detecting 
compliance problems early. When an entity's noncompliance results in 
litigation or an enforcement action, the entity must face both the 
costs of defending its action and the penalties for noncompliance, 
including potential

[[Page 80213]]

liability for damages to private plaintiffs. The entity must also 
adjust its systems to ensure future compliance. Changing practices that 
have been in place for long periods of time can be expected to be 
relatively difficult because they may be severe enough to represent a 
serious failing of an entity's systems. Supervision may detect flaws at 
a point when correcting them would be relatively inexpensive. Catching 
problems early can, in some situations, forestall costly litigation. To 
the extent early correction limits the amount of consumer harm caused 
by a violation, it can help limit the cost of redress. In short, 
supervision might benefit providers of general-use digital consumer 
payment applications under supervision by, in the aggregate, reducing 
the need for other more expensive activities to achieve 
compliance.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ Further potential benefits to consumers, covered persons, 
or both might arise from the CFPB's gathering of information during 
supervisory activities. The goals of supervision include informing 
the CFPB about activities of market participants and assessing risks 
to consumers and to markets for consumer financial products and 
services. The CFPB may use this information to improve regulation of 
consumer financial products and services and to improve enforcement 
of Federal consumer financial law, in order to better serve its 
mission of ensuring consumers' access to fair, transparent, and 
competitive markets for such products and services. Benefits of this 
type would depend on what the CFPB learns during supervision and how 
it uses that knowledge. For example, because the CFPB would examine 
a number of covered persons in the market for general-use digital 
consumer payment applications, the CFPB would build an understanding 
of how effective compliance systems and processes function in that 
market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Costs of Supervisory Activities
    The potential costs of actual supervisory activities would arise in 
two categories. The first would involve any costs to individual 
providers of general-use digital consumer payment applications of 
increasing compliance in response to the CFPB's findings during 
supervisory activity and to supervisory actions. These costs would be 
similar in nature to the possible compliance costs, described above, 
the larger participants in general might incur in anticipation of 
possible supervisory actions. This analysis will not repeat that 
discussion. The second category would be the cost of supporting 
supervisory activity.
    Supervisory activity may involve requests for information or 
records, on-site or off-site examinations, or some combination of these 
activities. For example, in an on-site examination, CFPB examiners 
generally contact the entity for an initial conference with management. 
That initial contact is often accompanied by a request for information 
or records. Based on the discussion with management and an initial 
review of the information received, examiners determine the scope of 
the on-site exam. While on-site, examiners spend some time in further 
conversation with management about the entity's policies, procedures, 
and processes. The examiners also review documents, records, and 
accounts to assess the entity's compliance and evaluate the entity's 
compliance management system. As with the CFPB's other examinations, 
examinations of nonbank larger participants in the market for general-
use digital consumer payment applications could involve issuing 
confidential examination reports and compliance ratings. The CFPB's 
examination manual describes the supervision process and indicates what 
materials and information an entity could expect examiners to request 
and review, both before they arrive and during their time on-site.
    The primary costs an entity would face in connection with an 
examination would be the cost of employees' time to collect and provide 
the necessary information. If the Proposed Rule is adopted, the 
frequency and duration of examinations of any particular entity would 
depend on a number of factors, including the size of the entity, the 
compliance or other risks identified, whether the entity has been 
examined previously, and the demands on the CFPB's supervisory 
resources imposed by other entities and markets. Nevertheless, some 
rough estimates may provide a sense of the magnitude of potential staff 
costs that entities might incur.
    The cost of supporting supervisory activity may be calibrated using 
prior CFPB experience in supervision. Examinations of larger 
participants in the market for general-use digital consumer payment 
applications are anticipated to be approximately 8 weeks on average, 
with an additional two weeks of preparation.\104\ This estimate assumes 
that each exam requires two weeks of preparation time by staff of 
providers of general-use digital consumer payment applications prior to 
the exam as well as on-site assistance by staff throughout the duration 
of the exam. The CFPB has not suggested that counsel or any particular 
staffing level is required during an examination. However, for the 
purposes of this analysis, the CFPB assumes, conservatively, that an 
entity might dedicate the equivalent of one full-time compliance 
officer and one-tenth of the time of a full-time attorney to assist 
with an exam. The national average hourly wage of a compliance officer 
is $37; the national average hourly wage for an attorney is $71.\105\ 
Assuming that wages and salaries account for 70.6 percent of total 
compensation for private industry workers, the total employer cost of 
labor to comply with an exam amounts to approximately $25,001.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ For an estimate of the length of examination, see Board of 
Gov. of Fed. Res. System Office of Inspector General, ``The Bureau 
Can Improve Its Risk Assessment Framework for Prioritizing and 
Scheduling Examination Activities'' (Mar. 25, 2019) at 13, available 
at https://oig.federalreserve.gov/reports/bureau-risk-assessment-framework-mar2019.pdf (last visited Oct. 31, 2023).
    \105\ For current U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) 
estimates of mean hourly wages of these occupations, see BLS, 
``Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2022, 13-10141 Compliance 
Officers'', available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes131041.htm#(1) (last visited Oct. 26, 2023); BLS, ``Occupational 
employment and Wages, May 2021, 23-1011 Lawyers,'' available at 
https://www.bls.gov/oes/2021/may/oes231011.htm (last visited Oct. 
26, 2023).
    \106\ See BLS, ``Employer Costs for Employee Compensation--June 
2023'' (Sept. 12, 2023) (Table 1 for 2023 Q2 estimates of the share 
of wages and salaries in total compensation of private sector 
workers), available at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf 
(last visited Oct. 26, 2023). This cost is calculated as follows: 
((((0.1 x $71.17) + $37.01)/0.706)) x 40 hours x 10 weeks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The overall costs of supervision in the market for general-use 
digital consumer payment applications would depend on the frequency and 
extent of CFPB examinations. Neither the CFPA nor the Proposed Rule 
specifies a particular level or frequency of examinations.\107\ The 
frequency of examinations would depend on a number of factors, 
including the CFPB's understanding of the conduct of market 
participants and the specific risks they pose to consumers; the 
responses of larger participants to prior examinations; and the demands 
that other markets' make on the CFPB's supervisory resources. These 
factors can be expected to change over time, and the CFPB's 
understanding of these factors may change as it gathers more 
information about the market through its supervision and by other 
means. The CFPB therefore declines to predict, at this point, precisely 
how many examinations in the market for general-use digital consumer 
payment applications it would undertake in a given year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ The CFPB declines to predict at this time precisely how 
many examinations it would undertake at each provider of general-use 
digital consumer payment applications if the Proposed Rule is 
adopted. However, if the CFPB were to examine each entity that would 
be a larger participant of the market under the Proposed Rule once 
every two years, the expected annual labor cost of supervision per 
larger participant would be approximately $12,500.50 (the cost of 
one examination, divided by two).

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

[[Page 80214]]

3. Costs of Assessing Larger-Participant Status
    A larger-participant rule does not require nonbanks to assess 
whether they are larger participants. However, the CFPB acknowledges 
that in some cases providers of general-use digital consumer payment 
applications might decide to incur costs to assess whether they qualify 
as larger participants or potentially dispute their status.
    Larger-participant status would depend on both a nonbank's 
aggregate annual transaction volume and whether the entity is a small 
business concern based on the applicable SBA size standard. The CFPB 
expects that many market participants already assemble general data 
related to the number of transactions that they provide for general-use 
digital consumer payment applications. Moreover, many providers are 
required to report transaction data to State regulators.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ The States have been active in regulation of money 
transmission by money services businesses, with 49 States and the 
District of Columbia requiring entities to obtain a license to 
engage in money transmission, as defined by applicable law. Further, 
many States also actively examine money transmitters, including the 
number of products and services they provide through general-use 
digital consumer payment applications. See, e.g., CSBS, 
Reengineering Nonbank Supervision, Ch. 4: Overview of Money Services 
Businesses (Oct. 2019) at 4 (discussing how providers of digital 
wallets hold and transmit monetary value), available at https://www.csbs.org/sites/default/files/other-files/Chapter%204%20-%20MSB%20Final%20FINAL_updated_0.pdf (last visited Oct. 27, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To the extent that some providers of general-use digital consumer 
payment applications do not already know whether their transactions 
exceed the threshold, such nonbanks might, in response to the Proposed 
Rule, develop new systems to count their transactions in accordance 
with the proposed market-related definitions of ``consumer payment 
transactions,'' ``covered payment functionality,'' ``general use,'' and 
``digital application'' discussed above. The data that the CFPB 
currently has do not support a detailed estimate of how many providers 
of general-use digital consumer payment applications would engage in 
such development or how much they would spend. Regardless, providers of 
general-use digital consumer payment applications would be unlikely to 
spend significantly more on specialized systems to count transactions 
than it would cost to be supervised by the CFPB as larger participants.
    The CFPB notes that larger-participant status also depends on 
whether an entity is subject to the proposed small business exclusion. 
In certain circumstances, larger-participant status may depend on 
determinations of which SBA size standard applies, and by extension, 
which NAICS code is most applicable. Therefore, providers of general-
use digital consumer payment applications may incur some administrative 
costs to evaluate whether the small business exclusion applies. 
However, providers would not need to engage in this evaluation if they 
could establish that their annual covered consumer payment transaction 
volume was below five million. In any event, the data that the CFPB 
currently has do not support a detailed estimate of how many providers 
of general-use digital consumer payment applications would engage in 
such efforts or how much they would spend.
    It bears emphasizing that even if a nonbank market participant's 
expenditures on an accounting system enabled it to successfully prove 
that it was not a larger participant (which, again, it would not need 
to do if it was a small business concern according to SBA standards), 
it would not necessarily follow that this entity could not be 
supervised under other supervisory authorities the CFPB has that this 
rulemaking does not establish. For example, the CFPB can supervise a 
nonbank entity whose conduct the CFPB determines, pursuant to CFPA 
section 1024(a)(1)(C) and regulations implementing that provision, 
poses risks to consumers. Thus, a nonbank entity choosing to spend 
significant amounts on an accounting system directed toward the larger-
participant transaction volume test could not be sure it would not be 
subject to CFPB supervision notwithstanding those expenses. The CFPB 
therefore believes very few if any nonbank entities would be likely to 
undertake such expenditures.
4. Considerations of Alternatives
    The CFPB is considering one major alternative: choosing a different 
transaction volume threshold to define larger participants. One 
alternative would be to set the threshold substantially higher--for 
example at 10 million aggregate annual consumer-to-consumer or 
consumer-to-business transactions. Under such an alternative, the 
benefits of supervision to both consumers and covered persons would 
likely be reduced because entities impacting a substantial number of 
consumers and/or consumers in important market segments might be 
omitted. On the other hand, the potential costs to covered persons 
would of course be reduced if fewer entities were defined as larger 
participants and thus fewer were subject to the CFPB's supervisory 
authority on that basis. Conversely, lowering the threshold would 
subject more entities to the CFPB's supervisory authority, but the 
total direct costs for actual examination activity might not change 
substantially because the CFPB conducts exams on a risk basis and would 
not necessarily examine more entities even if the rule's coverage were 
broader.

C. Potential Specific Impacts of the Proposed Rule

1. Depository Institutions and Credit Unions With $10 Billion or Less 
in Total Assets, as Described in Dodd-Frank Act Section 1026
    The Proposed Rule would not apply to depository institutions or 
credit unions of any size. However, as discussed in the section-by-
section analysis of ``digital application'' above, it may apply to 
nonbank covered persons that provide covered payment functionalities 
through a digital application of a bank or credit union. In addition, 
it might have some competition-related impact on depository 
institutions or credit unions that provide general-use digital consumer 
payment applications. For example, if the relative price of nonbanks' 
general-use digital consumer payment applications were to increase due 
to increased costs related to supervision, then depository institutions 
or credit unions of any size might benefit by the relative change in 
costs. These effects, if any, would likely be small.
2. Impact of the Provisions on Consumers in Rural Areas
    Because the Proposed Rule would apply uniformly to consumer payment 
transactions that both rural and non-rural consumers make through 
general-use digital consumer payment applications, the rule should not 
have a unique impact on rural consumers. The CFPB is not aware of any 
evidence suggesting that rural consumers have been disproportionately 
harmed by the failure of providers of general-use digital consumer 
payment applications to comply with Federal consumer financial law. The 
CFPB seeks information from commenters related to how digital consumer 
payments affect rural consumers.

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, requires each 
agency to consider the potential impact of its regulations on

[[Page 80215]]

small entities, including small businesses, small governmental units, 
and small not-for-profit organizations.\109\ The RFA defines a ``small 
business'' as a business that meets the size standard developed by the 
SBA pursuant to the Small Business Act.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. The term `` `small organization' 
means any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and 
operated and is not dominant in its field, unless an agency 
establishes [an alternative definition after notice and comment].'' 
5 U.S.C. 601(4). The term `` `small governmental jurisdiction' means 
governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school 
districts, or special districts, with a population of less than 
fifty thousand, unless an agency establishes [an alternative 
definition after notice and comment].'' 5 U.S.C. 601(5). The CFPB is 
not aware of any small governmental units or small not-for-profit 
organizations to which the Proposed Rule would apply.
    \110\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3). The CFPB may establish an alternative 
definition after consultation with SBA and an opportunity for public 
comment. As mentioned above, the SBA defines size standards using 
NAICS codes that align with an entity's primary line of business. 
The CFPB believes that many--but not all--entities in the proposed 
market for general-use digital consumer payment applications are 
primarily engaged in financial services industries. See, e.g., SBA, 
Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American 
Industry Classification System Codes, effective March 17, 2023, 
Sector 52 (Finance and Insurance), available at https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards (last visited Oct. 26, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) of any proposed rule subject to 
notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies 
that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities.\111\ The CFPB also is subject 
to certain additional procedures under the RFA involving the convening 
of a panel to consult with small entity representatives prior to 
proposing a rule for which an IRFA is required.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
    \112\ 5 U.S.C. 609.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Director of the CFPB certifies that the Proposed Rule, if 
adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities and that an IRFA therefore is not required.
    The Proposed Rule would define a class of providers of general-use 
digital consumer payment applications as larger participants of a 
market for general-use digital consumer payment applications and 
thereby authorize the CFPB to undertake supervisory activities with 
respect to those nonbank covered persons. The Proposed Rule would use a 
two-pronged test for determining larger-participant status. First, the 
proposed threshold for larger-participant status would be five million 
in annual covered consumer payment transaction volume. Second, the 
proposed larger-participant test would incorporate a small entity 
exclusion. As a result, larger-participant status would only apply to a 
nonbank covered person that, together with its affiliated companies, 
both meets the proposed five-million transaction threshold and is not a 
small business concern based on the applicable SBA size standard. 
Because of that exclusion, the number of small entities participating 
in the market that would experience a significant economic impact due 
to the Proposed Rule is, by definition, zero.
    Finally, CFPA section 1024(e) authorizes the CFPB to supervise 
service providers to nonbank covered persons encompassed by CFPA 
section 1024(a)(1), which includes larger participants.\113\ Because 
the Proposed Rule would not address service providers, effects on 
service providers need not be discussed for purposes of this RFA 
analysis. Even were such effects relevant, the CFPB believes that it 
would be very unlikely that any supervisory activities with respect to 
the service providers to the approximately 17 larger participants of 
the proposed nonbank market for general-use digital consumer payment 
applications would result in a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ 12 U.S.C. 5514(e); 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1).
    \114\ The CFPB is aware that there are likely hundreds of 
service providers to potential larger participants of the proposed 
market, particularly in light of the market complexity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The CFPB has determined that the Proposed Rule would not impose any 
new recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements on covered 
entities or members of the public that would constitute collections of 
information requirement approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

VIII. Signing Authority

    The Director of the CFPB, having reviewed and approved this 
document, is delegating the authority to electronically sign this 
document to Emily Ross, Executive Secretary, for purposes of 
publication in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects

    Consumer protection, Electronic funds transfers, Electronic 
products.

Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons set forth above, the CFPB proposes to amend 12 CFR 
part 1090 as follows:

PART 1090--DEFINING LARGER PARTICIPANTS OF CERTAIN CONSUMER 
FINANCIAL PRODUCT AND SERVICE MARKETS

0
1. The authority citation for part 1090 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(B); 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(2); 12 
U.S.C. 5514(b)(7)(A); and 12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(1).

0
2. Add Sec.  1090.109 to read as follows:


Sec.  1090.109  General-use digital consumer payment applications 
market.

    (a)(1) Market definition. Providing a general-use digital consumer 
payment application means providing a covered payment functionality 
through a digital application for consumers' general use in making 
consumer payment transaction(s) as defined in this subpart.
    (2) Market-related definitions. As used in this section:
    Consumer payment transaction(s) means, except for transactions 
excluded under paragraphs (A) through (D) of this definition, the 
transfer of funds by or on behalf of a consumer physically located in a 
State to another person primarily for personal, family, or household 
purposes. The term applies to transfers of consumer funds and transfers 
made by extending consumer credit, except for the following 
transactions:
    (A) An international money transfer as defined in Sec.  
1090.107(a);
    (B) A transfer of funds by a consumer:
    (1) That is linked to the consumer's receipt of a different form of 
funds, such as a transaction for foreign exchange as defined in 12 
U.S.C. 5481(16); or
    (2) That is excluded from the definition of ``electronic fund 
transfer'' under Sec.  1005.3(c)(4) of this chapter;
    (C) A payment transaction conducted by a person for the sale or 
lease of goods or services that a consumer selected from an online or 
physical store or marketplace operated prominently in the name of such 
person or its affiliated company; and
    (D) An extension of consumer credit that is made using a digital 
application provided by the person who is extending the credit or that 
person's affiliated company.
    Covered payment functionality means a funds transfer functionality 
as defined in paragraph (A) of this definition, a wallet functionality 
as defined in paragraph (B) of this definition, or both.
    (A) Funds transfer functionality means, in connection with a 
consumer payment transaction:

[[Page 80216]]

    (1) Receiving funds for the purpose of transmitting them; or
    (2) Accepting and transmitting payment instructions.
    (B) Wallet functionality means a product or service that:
    (1) Stores account or payment credentials, including in encrypted 
or tokenized form; and
    (2) Transmits, routes, or otherwise processes such stored account 
or payment credentials to facilitate a consumer payment transaction.
    Digital application, for purposes of this subpart, means a software 
program a consumer may access through a personal computing device, 
including but not limited to a mobile phone, smart watch, tablet, 
laptop computer, desktop computer. Examples of digital applications 
covered by this definition include an application a consumer downloads 
to a personal computing device, a website a consumer accesses by using 
an internet browser on a personal computing device, or a program the 
consumer activates from a personal computing device using a consumer's 
biometric identifier, such as a fingerprint, palmprint, face, eyes, or 
voice.
    General use, for purposes of this subpart, refers to the absence of 
significant limitations on the purpose of consumer payment transactions 
facilitated by the covered payment functionality provided through the 
digital consumer payment application. Restricting use of the covered 
payment functionality to person-to-person transfers is not an example 
of a significant limitation; such a covered payment functionality would 
have general use for purposes of this subpart. A payment functionality 
provided through a digital consumer payment application solely for the 
following consumer payment transactions would not have general use for 
purposes of this subpart:
    (A) For purchase or lease of a specific type of services, goods, or 
other property, such as one of the following:
    (1) Transportation;
    (2) Lodging;
    (3) Food;
    (4) An automobile as defined in Sec.  1090.108 of this subpart;
    (5) A dwelling or real property;
    (6) A consumer financial product or service as defined in 12 U.S.C. 
5481(5);
    (B) Using accounts described in Sec.  1005.2(b)(3)(ii)(A), (C), or 
(D) of this chapter;
    (C) To pay a specific debt or type of debt including repayment of 
an extension of consumer credit; or
    (D) To split a charge for a specific type of goods or services 
(e.g., restaurant or other similar bill splitting).
    State means any State, territory, or possession of the United 
States; the District of Columbia; the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; or 
any political subdivision thereof.
    (b) Test to define larger participants. A nonbank covered person is 
a larger participant of the general-use digital consumer payment 
application market if the nonbank covered person meets both of the 
following criteria:
    (1) It provides annual covered consumer payment transaction volume 
as defined in paragraph (b)(3) of this section of at least five million 
transactions; and
    (2) During the preceding calendar year it was not a ``small 
business concern'' as that term is defined by section 3(a) of the Small 
Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632(a) and implemented by the Small Business 
Administration under 13 CFR part 121, or any successor provisions.
    (3) Annual covered consumer payment transaction volume means the 
sum of the number of consumer payment transactions that the nonbank 
covered person and its affiliated companies facilitated in the 
preceding calendar year by providing general-use digital consumer 
payment applications.
    (i) Aggregating the annual covered consumer payment transaction 
volume of affiliated companies. The annual covered consumer payment 
transaction volume of each affiliated company of a nonbank covered 
person is first calculated separately, treating the affiliated company 
as if it were an independent nonbank covered person for purposes of the 
calculation. The annual covered consumer payment transaction volume of 
a nonbank covered person then must be aggregated with the separately-
calculated annual covered consumer payment transaction volume of any 
person that was an affiliated company of the nonbank covered person at 
any time in the preceding calendar year. However, if more than one 
affiliated company facilitates a single consumer payment transaction, 
that consumer payment transaction shall only be counted one time in the 
annual covered consumer payment volume calculation. The annual covered 
consumer payment transaction volumes of the nonbank covered person and 
its affiliated companies are aggregated for the entire preceding 
calendar year, even if the affiliation did not exist for the entire 
calendar year.

Emily Ross,
Executive Secretary, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2023-24978 Filed 11-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P