On November 30, 2020, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released an advisory opinion concerning earned wage access ("EWA") products. The opinion was released as a sort of "launch day bonus" for the release of the Bureau's Final Advisory Opinions Policy and accompanying website page. The Bureau addressed whether EWA providers are offering or extending credit within the scope of Regulation Z. The Bureau determined that "Covered EWA Programs" do not involve the offering or extension of credit under Reg. Z.
What are Earned Wage Access Programs?
EWA programs are aimed at allowing consumers to tap alternative financial sources other than payday loans or similar products before they receive their paychecks. Though they can come in different shapes and sizes, EWA programs typically enable employees to request a certain amount (or share) of accrued wages before payday that are later paid back through payroll deductions or bank account debits on the subsequent payday.
What is the Uncertainty Around EWA Programs that the CFPB Was Asked to Address?
EWA providers—and the CFPB itself—acknowledge that there is uncertainty over whether the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA") and its implementing regulation, Regulation Z, apply to EWA programs. Regulation Z applies to any non-exempt individual or business that offers or extends credit when four conditions are met:
12 C.F.R. § 1026.1(c)(1).
Under Regulation Z, "credit" means the right to defer payment of debt or to incur debt and defer its payment. 12 C.F.R. § 1026.2(14). The CFPB notes in the opinion that the definition of "credit" is virtually identical under TILA, and that its analysis applies to both TILA and Regulation Z.
What Does the Advisory Opinion Do to Resolve the Uncertainty?
The advisory opinion concluded that a "Covered EWA Program" is not an extension of credit and thus not subject to Regulation Z.
A Covered EWA Program meets all the following criteria:
The CFPB concluded that a Covered EWA Program does not provide consumers with "credit" for the following reasons:
Arguably, for a transaction to not be considered "credit," simply not creating "debt" should be sufficient. That is, if there is "no legal or contractual remedy" related to non-payment, then under Regulation Z, a good-faith argument exists that there is not a credit transaction. If a lender provides a consumer funds, and the option to repay or not repay, with a promise that non-payment won't result in collection activity or a lawsuit, the transaction probably shouldn't be deemed credit. That may not be a prudent business transaction, but the CFPB has invited feedback to evaluate whether to provide additional guidance about programs that differ from those addressed in this advisory opinion.
Justin B. Hosie is a partner in the Tennessee office of Hudson Cook, LLP. He can be reached at 423.490.7564 or by email at jhosie@hudco.com. Christopher J. Capurso is an associate in the Virginia office of Hudson Cook, LLP. Chris can be reached at 804-212-2998 or by email at ccapurso@hudco.com.
Copyright © 2025 CounselorLibrary.com, LLC. All rights reserved.