A California federal court's certification of a class action against GreenSky over its merchant fee practices marks a pivotal moment for alternative lending regulation, with implications for fee structures, bank partnerships, and compliance strategies across the sector.
Case Fundamentals
Certified Class: California residents who obtained GreenSky loans ≥$500 with transaction fees ≥1% (January 2016–present).
- Key Allegations:
Regulatory Context
California's enforcement aligns with three systemic changes:
- DFPI Pilot Program (Effective February 2025):
- Requires registration/reporting for private education financing and income-based advances
- Targets fee transparency through four-year data collection initiative
- CFL Enforcement Trends:
- License requirements now apply to lenders retaining >40% of fees in bank partnerships
- Explicit prohibition on "hidden compensation" via merchant arrangements
- Federal Coordination:
- CFPB's 2021 action against GreenSky ($9M refunds, $2.5M penalty) set precedent for state follow-through
Industry Implications
Market Response
- Margin Pressures: 12-15% compression forecast for California POS lending
- Product Shifts: 57% of lenders pivoting to real property-secured loans (exempt from CFL)
- Regulatory Arbitrage: Increased expansion in Texas/Florida with 23% lower compliance costs
This certification reinforces California's strategy to eliminate regulatory distinctions between fintechs and traditional lenders. While adaptable firms can leverage new compliance infrastructures for competitive advantage, laggards face existential litigation risks.
Three Converging Data Points
The 12-15% margin compression projection for California POS lenders stems from three converging data points validated by industry litigation and operational trends:
1. Transaction Fee Liability
The GreenSky class action (certified January 2025) quantifies damages at $67.8M from 7-10% merchant fees passed to consumers. For lenders with similar fee structures, this equates to:
When combined with DFPI's new documentation requirements, compliance costs add 4-6% operational drag
2. Secondary Market Pressures
Mortgage industry precedents show:
- 122 bps margin expansion in 2020 (Guild Mortgage)
- Subsequent 73 bps compression from 2021-2023
POS lenders face amplified risks due to non-collateralized loans, translating to 1.8x multiplier vs. mortgage compression rates.
3. Regulatory Arbitrage Costs
California lenders report 23% higher compliance costs vs. Texas/Florida counterparts [Original Market Impact Assessment]. Mitigation strategies like dual licensing consume 9-12% of net margins.
Sources: Court filings: 1, 8, DFPI regulations: 3, 9, CFPB enforcement: 4, Industry analyses: 5, 7, 10
Actionable Profit Preservation Strategies
Margin Leakage Plugs
Automated Pricing Concessions
Implement ML models like Apex's LO comp system to:
- Limit concessions to ≤15% of loans
- Auto-reject requests exceeding 25 bps discount
- Result: 19% reduction in margin erosion
Asset-Light Partnerships
Leverage Universal Funding's receivables factoring model:
# Sample cash flow optimization
def optimize_working_capital(invoices):
factored = [x for x in invoices if x.days_outstanding > 30]
return sum(invoice.amount * 0.85 for invoice in factored)
Impact: 12-18% improved liquidity for 3-5% fee cost
Regulatory Arbitrage Vehicles
Establish Texas/Florida subsidiaries for non-CA loans using:
- Delaware Series LLC structure (0% CA nexus)
- Fee passthrough trusts to isolate CFL exposure
- Savings: 14% net margin boost vs. CA-only operations
3 Dynamic Response Framework
1. Monthly Margin Diagnostics
Track:
- Merchant fee absorption rate (Target: <40%)
- Performance fee ratio (Target: ≤1.2x base rate)
2. Automated Contract Triggers
Embed clauses allowing:
- 45-day fee restructuring if CFL amendments pass
- Merchant clawbacks for >5% project cost inflation
3 Scenario Planning
Stress test using 2025 CFPB thresholds:
Break-even =Fixed Costs1 – Variable Cost % – 0.15
Maintain 3.2x coverage ratio on operating reserves.
While margin pressures are structural (not cyclical), lenders using tiered compliance automation and multi-state balancing can achieve 8-12% net margins – outperforming traditional bank partners by 4.7x (Source 7). The key lies in treating fee restructuring not as cost-cutting but as precision re-engineering of revenue architecture.
Our Opinion
This regulatory issue challenges the fee structures crucial for profitability. If your business charges merchant fees above California's limits (7% for smaller loans, 5% for larger ones), you risk similar litigation, posing an existential threat that needs immediate attention.
Many lenders use bank partnerships to operate nationally without state-specific licenses. However, California's "predominant economic interest" test threatens these models. Controlling underwriting, retaining significant fees, or having merchant exclusivity agreements could jeopardize operations.
This creates winners and losers. Larger players can adapt, while smaller lenders may be forced out. Understanding this shift is crucial for strategic planning, whether to capitalize on competitors' vulnerabilities or strengthen your defenses.
Although this is a California case, regulatory approaches often spread to other states. What begins in California can become a model for other regulators. Addressing this now could save millions in future restructuring or litigation costs.
The regulatory environment for alternative lending is changing. Those who adapt will survive; those who don't may be regulated out of business.
Headlines You Don’t Want to Miss
Apollo Global Management on alternative lenders expanding their horizons
Apollo Global Management is significantly expanding its reach in alternative lending through retail access, new marketplaces, strategic partnerships, and global market penetration. The firm now offers private credit products to retail investors via ETFs, broadening access to an asset class traditionally limited to institutions. Concurrently, Apollo is developing a private credit marketplace with banks and fintech firms to enhance liquidity and trading efficiency for high-grade private assets.
Fintech startup Ramp sees valuation jump to $13 billion after share sale deal
Fintech startup Ramp reached a $13 billion valuation after a $150 million secondary share sale, allowing employees and early investors to liquidate stakes while signaling renewed investor confidence in high-growth firms despite higher interest rates. The deal, led by investors like Khosla Ventures and Thrive Capital, underscores a trend of private companies using secondary sales to delay IPOs, as Ramp expands its AI-driven financial tools and processes over $55 billion in annual payments.
Block's 30% plunge in February leads fintech selloff, while Stripe shows benefit of staying private
Stripe's $91.5 billion valuation through a recent employee share sale highlights its resilience as a private company, contrasting with Block's 28% stock plunge in February amid fintech sector volatility. While Block faced earnings misses and legal challenges12, Stripe leveraged AI partnerships and processed $1.4 trillion in payments to avoid public market pressures.
.jpg){kind=small}
.png)