But the prospect of heightened federal oversight has sparked deep and wide-ranging unease throughout the tech industry, triggering a lobbying offensive that aims to limit the government’s power to monitor mobile wallets, accounts or other digital payment services.
The spats have occurred with little fanfare on Capitol Hill and at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which unveiled its proposal for new tech scrutiny in November. The agency seeks to subject the largest payment apps and services — from money-transferring tools like Cash App, for example, to the smartphone wallets offered by Apple and Google — to the same rigorous checkups as their bricks-and-mortar predecessors.
In practice, the CFPB would gain the ability to conduct on-site reviews at these companies and examine their private documents and communications, a form of monitoring — known as supervision — meant to ensure the stewards of Americans’ money have sound financial practices. Major banks, such as Bank of America, Chase and Wells Fargo, are already subject to such federal inspections.
The CFPB has portrayed its proposal as a response to rising complaints from smartphone users, who say they struggle to resolve fraudulent charges, restore missing balances and address myriad other troubles with many popular digital payment services. While the agency’s rules are not final, regulators have also explored ways to invoke their existing authorities so that they can inspect select tech companies on a case-by-case basis, according to two people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the confidential rule-writing process.
But the tech industry has been unsparing in its opposition, arguing there is no proof that their products harm consumers. An executive at the lobbying group TechNet, which represents Apple, Google and PayPal, told lawmakers at a congressional hearing in March that the government’s proposal is legally “defective.” Other tech lobbyists have expressed fears that the CFPB stands to gain unprecedented access to their businesses, potentially enabling the government to open probes and levy punishments if it finds misconduct even outside of payment apps.
The fierce resistance suggests the tech industry would sooner sue the CFPB than submit to greater federal oversight of digital payments, foreshadowing yet another rift between government regulators and the tech and financial heavyweights under their watch.
“These are not services that a few people are using. These are products that are becoming almost a standard part of how people transact, so it’s pretty urgent,” said Adam Rust, director of financial services at the Consumer Federation of America, which has encouraged the CFPB to act. “There’s widespread use and systematic inconsistency in [oversight].”
Apple, Google and PayPal each declined to comment. Carl Holshouser, executive vice president at TechNet, said the organization does not oppose federal oversight. But he said the CFPB wrote its rules so broadly that small and medium-size businesses could face unnecessary inspections, too.
“I think the CFPB’s intent is to have a much wider regulatory purview, which will give them the ability to regulate all of the tech industry,” he said.
Rohit Chopra, the director of the CFPB, said in a statement that the agency’s proposed rules would ensure “large payment companies of all types get the appropriate oversight,” adding: “Families should get the same consumer protections regardless of whether their payments are handled by a Wall Street bank or a Silicon Valley tech giant.”
The new scrutiny in Washington reflects the rapid sea change in the way Americans spend cash. Mobile wallets, like Apple Pay, are now commonplace, and peer-to-peer money transfer apps, including Venmo, have experienced a meteoric rise over the past decade. An estimated 159 million Americans made such transactions in 2023, according to data from eMarketer, which projects that just under 75 percent of all smartphone owners will use such tools by 2027.
Spanning a vast array of services, payment apps and platforms are regulated by a patchwork of laws, from state money-transfer licenses to federal rules that govern deposits, data and consumer disputes. While some states already supervise tech companies, the extent of their reviews — and the nature of their enforcement efforts — can vary dramatically across the country, according to Christopher Odinet, a law professor at the University of Iowa who specializes in consumer finance.
“These regulators, they come in many different shapes and sizes,” he said, noting some have “really thin staffs and really lean budgets.”
But the tech companies that offer these products are not banks, so they may not receive the same federal scrutiny as other financial institutions even when their offerings are indistinguishable to the average consumer. If a user were to store money in their account on PayPal, for example, that cash isn’t always federally insured — whereas a traditional bank deposit would be guaranteed by the government and regulated accordingly.
Citing these disparities, the CFPB issued rules in November meant to subject tech giants to tougher oversight. The agency proposed supervising the largest digital consumer payment companies — those with more than 5 million transactions annually — to ensure they follow federal laws, including those that prohibit deceptive practices and protect consumers’ data.
With more aggressive monitoring, the CFPB said, it could more easily spot and address violations because the supervision process empowers the government to seek changes to companies’ practices — or take legal action. The agency’s plan arrived roughly two years after Chopra ordered some of the same companies to turn over data related to their payment apps.
“The traditional lines we drew within the financial sector have become fuzzy over the past several decades,” Chopra said in a speech before the proposed rules were released. “Big Tech companies are now taking advantage of that blurring as they move into finance, threatening the fundamental separation between banking, money and payments on one side and our real economy on the other.”
While the agency did not identify companies it would target, officials estimated that about 17 digital payment services would be subject to enhanced oversight. But the tech industry fiercely rebuked the idea, saying the CFPB would saddle a much wider array of products and services with costly, unnecessary scrutiny.
In January, lobbyists for Block, which owns Cash App, and for other services including Venmo, told the government its proposal is “without justification” and conflates many types of apps and services. Some criticisms echoed the complaints that companies tend to levy at the CFPB before suing, though the leader of the group said it was too soon to comment on next steps.
“Knowing the atmosphere, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone doesn’t legally challenge this rule,” said Penny Lee, the president of the Financial Technology Association.
Many financial technology companies faulted the CFPB for rules that could ultimately cover many more companies than portrayed — as many as 180, according to TechNet’s Holshouser, who blasted it as a “power grab to regulate.” Lobbyists for some of the most popular cryptocurrencies, crypto wallet services and their investors, meanwhile, told the CFPB it had no authority over their industry.
Some of the largest tech companies, including Apple, Amazon and Google, also flagged the “significant costs” they would face under greater federal oversight. Speaking through one of their top Washington voices — the Computer and Communications Industry Association — they fretted that the CFPB could gain unprecedented visibility into their inner workings. The tech giants said that the rules would “allow the agency to supervise and examine other activities,” even outside of payment apps, potentially opening the door for other federal investigations and punishments.
Already, Apple, Amazon and Google are facing separate federal lawsuits that accuse them of violating antitrust laws, and all three companies have been sanctioned or faced complaints related to their handling of consumers’ data. In its own filing, Amazon told the CFPB it shouldn’t be covered by the new rules at all, arguing there are no “consumer risks” with tools like its Amazon Pay service, which helps users pay for goods on other merchants’ websites and doesn’t store customers’ cash. (Amazon founder and former chief executive Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post.)
The lobbying campaign stands in stark contrast to the thousands of complaints filed in recent years by aggrieved consumers, who have consistently told the CFPB that tech companies mishandle their money. Some have sought federal help after they struggled to resolve unauthorized charges on Venmo, for example; others have asked the bureau for aid when they couldn’t get the attention of Cash App about fraud or other issues affecting their balances.
Some of the accusations have sparked CFPB probes: The agency opened an investigation in 2022 into Block over its “handling of customer complaints and disputes,” the company later told investors. In February, the parent company of Cash App said regulators are now “considering recommending that the CFPB take legal action.” A spokesperson declined to comment for this article.
“We’ve seen a lot of problems,” said Lauren Saunders, an associate director at the National Consumer Law Center, which has advocated for agency action. “We’ve seen [consumers facing] a lot of fraud in payments, a lot of trouble reaching customer service, a lot of trouble getting their accounts unfrozen.”
Consumer groups largely have heralded the CFPB’s approach, as have state officials, who encouraged the agency this year to adopt rules that might aid their own investigations. Matthew Platkin, the attorney general of New Jersey, said in an interview that he led a coalition of 19 states in asking the CFPB to intervene, after seeing “a significant increase in risk our residents face when using a whole host of apps, especially when it comes to mobile transactions.”
Even before the CFPB finalizes its rules, however, the agency can begin supervising the most high-risk companies under its founding law. Chopra first announced that the CFPB would revise this “dormant authority” in 2022, citing the “rapid growth of consumer offerings by nonbanks” and the need to ensure they are held to the “same standards” as their financial counterparts.
Much of this work tends to occur in secret, unless companies reveal they are under supervision or the CFPB places an uncooperative firm under a legal order. It has implemented such reviews for at least one fintech company, Affirm, which offers a “buy now, pay later” service that helps people obtain short-term loans for large purchases. The company disclosed the scrutiny last year in filings with investors.
“We have always viewed the CFPB as one of our regulators, which is why we have continuously engaged with them as well as all of our other regulatory stakeholders,” Affirm spokesman Matt Gross said in a statement.
Other technology companies have been more averse to greater federal oversight, choosing to take their complaints to Congress, where Republicans have long sided with industry in seeking to rein in — or eliminate entirely — the CFPB. The political dynamic was on display last month, as House GOP leaders convened a hearing to explore the agency’s “latest action to restrict competition in payments,” primarily calling tech lobbyists, lawyers and allies to testify.
Republicans thrashed the CFPB for pursuing what they called unnecessary regulation: Rep. French Hill (R-Ark.), the top lawmaker on the House’s leading fintech-focused committee, said the CFPB’s rules would give it “carte blanche to knock down the door of companies large and small with their fleet of examiners.”
“The CFPB is trying to cast as wide of a net as possible and become a technology regulator,” he said.
Many of the GOP attacks mimicked complaints levied by technology companies, which have donated to Hill and other panel lawmakers, according to federal records reviewed by OpenSecrets, a money-in-politics watchdog.
“We have to protect consumers and safeguard them,” TechNet’s Holshouser told lawmakers during the hearing, “but onerous regulations like this will have a chilling effect on innovation.”
