We would like to ensure that you are still receiving content that you find useful – please confirm that you would like to continue to receive ILO newsletters.
18 March 2016
As internet, mobile and virtual currency activities have prompted heightened supervisory and enforcement activity under state money transmission statutes, the once-settled role of payment processors acting on behalf of merchants has occasionally been re-examined by state regulators. In a novel departure from the historical understanding of merchant processing activities in this regard, the Division of Consumer Services of the Department of Financial Institutions in the State of Washington recently issued an interpretation providing that merchant payment processing constitutes money transmission under the Washington Uniform Money Services Act.(1) The interpretation therefore concludes that merchant payment processors are subject to licensing and other requirements under the act unless a waiver is granted by the department. The interpretation also outlines criteria under which a payment processor may be eligible for a waiver from the licensing requirements of the act. The interpretation became effective on January 1 2016.
The Washington Uniform Money Services Act requires persons engaged in money transmission in the State of Washington to obtain a licence and subjects such persons to supervision, oversight and regulation by the Department of Financial Institutions. Although the term 'money transmission' as defined by the act does not expressly refer to payment processing, it is broadly defined to mean "receiving money or its equivalent value to transmit, deliver, or instruct to be delivered the money or its equivalent value to another location… by any means".(2) The interpretation expressly states that payment processing on behalf of merchants is money transmission under the act. Accordingly, the department expresses the view that persons engaged in merchant payment processing (including as bill payment processors on behalf of billers) are subject to licensing, regulation, supervision and oversight as money transmitters by the department under the act.
The interpretation does not define 'payment processing', but rather describes the role of payment processors as intermediaries that provide "money transmission services between various types of consumer/debtor/payors and merchant/creditor/payees". As such, the interpretation appears to fundamentally mischaracterise the role of merchant payment processors, which – if they are in the flow of funds to the merchant at all – are responsible for the movement of money between the acquiring bank that settles with the card association and the merchant. That role should arguably be covered by the payment processor exemption in Section 19.230.020(9) of the act, since both the acquiring bank (as an expressly exempt entity) and the merchant (as the recipient of funds not subject to the act in the first place) are excluded from the act's coverage. However, the interpretation does not address this argument, taking the position that "merchants/creditors and consumers/debtors are not typically persons all excluded from the Act".
Having concluded that the act broadly applies to merchant payment processors, the department acknowledges that under certain circumstances, the risk of loss to a consumer is reduced. The interpretation establishes criteria which, if satisfied, may allow the payment processor to obtain a department waiver from the licensing provisions of the act. The interpretation does not exempt a payment processor from the non-licensing provisions of the act and expressly states that the department "retains jurisdiction over the money transmission activities of the company even with the license waiver in place… [and] [c]ompanies operating under a license waiver are subject to entry and examination by the Department".
Regardless of whether they are licensed, companies that are payment processors must request an analysis by the department of eligibility for the licensing waiver. If a licensing waiver applies and the entity is otherwise licensed as a money transmitter in the State of Washington, it may elect not to report the payment processing activity subject to the waiver during the annual assessment period.
The interpretation states that the department may provide waivers to payment processors that:
However, the licensing waiver cannot be applied to payment processors:
While the waiver process mitigates the impact of the interpretation, it is possible that it will be challenged. Nonetheless, businesses serving as payment processing intermediaries between payees and payors should review their business models and relevant agreements to determine whether they are engaged in the payment processing activities covered by the interpretation and, if so, whether they are eligible for a licensing waiver.
For further information on this topic please contact David E Teitelbaum, Joel D Feinberg or Gretchen E Lamberg at Sidley Austin LLP by telephone (+1 202 736 8000) or email (email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com). The Sidley Austin website can be accessed at www.sidley.com.
The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer.
ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription.