[ADiamond]

https://debanked.com/?s=california+license&x=0&y=0

https://dfpi.ca.gov/california-finan...law-about/#Who

Who is Required to Obtain a Finance Lenders License?
In general, any person engaging in the business of a finance lender or finance broker in California is required to obtain a license under the California Financing Law. The California Financing Law contains a number of exemptions for persons licensed by other regulatory agencies.

Definitions
“Finance lender” includes any person engaged in the business of making consumer loans or making commercial loans.
“Finance broker” includes any person engaged in the business of negotiating or performing any act as broker in connection with loans made by a finance lender. A broker license authorizes brokering of loans to licensed finance lenders; it does not authorize brokering of loans to those who are not licensed finance lenders.

1) You all really should be consulting legal professionals for clarity, but I would love for Sean & Debanked to update some current guidance for this as all of their articles are circa 2015-2016 when this was a problem.

2) A "MCA" is not a loan in CA, it appears, and as such is not subject to lending licenses. HOWEVER, it appears they are subject to APR disclosure laws and lending license or not, it appears that a BROKER OF ANY financial product or financial product marketing is required to be licensed in CA, from my interpretation of the Expansion Capital legal filing I found below. Correct me if I am wrong on that last part?

3) It appears as far as "MCAs" are concerned in CA, they are super strict on disclosure notice - although I've read in some places they admit that "APR" can technically not be calculated for a MCA, and if we're being honest "APR" theoretically does not even apply to a MCA product from a financial standpoint, but who knows? CA also appears to be super strict on MCA companies abiding by their specified percentage / reconciliation clauses in order for the contract to be valid.


https://dfpi.ca.gov/2020/04/06/advis...nce-contracts/

https://dfpi.ca.gov/wp-content/uploa...-Group-LLC.pdf

A lot of info in this, just search "merchant cash"
https://dfpi.ca.gov/wp-content/uploa...01-18-RBLC.pdf

[Sean Cash]

There are multiple things being discussed in this thread.

1. lender/broker licensing (an old requirement)
2. commercial financing disclosure (a new requirement)


---
1. If you do MCA, the answer to #1 is something your lawyer will have to answer. In the past it has been possible to do MCAs without a license. It also been risky so you must talk to an attorney about this.

2. If you do MCA, whether ACH or split, you are subject to the commercial financing disclosure law that goes into effect in 2 days and all that entails. It is a highly complex law with a lot of moving pieces. You cannot wing it and throw in a form or whatever and think you'll be good. These regulations took more than 4 years to create and it requires very competent legal counsel to even attempt to successfully navigate.

https://debanked.com/?s=california+license&x=0&y=0

https://dfpi.ca.gov/california-finan...law-about/#Who


1) You all really should be consulting legal professionals for clarity, but I would love for Sean & Debanked to update some current guidance for this as all of their articles are circa 2015-2016 when this was a problem.

2) A "MCA" is not a loan in CA, it appears, and as such is not subject to lending licenses. HOWEVER, it appears they are subject to APR disclosure laws and lending license or not, it appears that a BROKER OF ANY financial product or financial product marketing is required to be licensed in CA, from my interpretation of the Expansion Capital legal filing I found below. Correct me if I am wrong on that last part?

3) It appears as far as "MCAs" are concerned in CA, they are super strict on disclosure notice - although I've read in some places they admit that "APR" can technically not be calculated for a MCA, and if we're being honest "APR" theoretically does not even apply to a MCA product from a financial standpoint, but who knows? CA also appears to be super strict on MCA companies abiding by their specified percentage / reconciliation clauses in order for the contract to be valid.


https://dfpi.ca.gov/2020/04/06/advis...nce-contracts/

https://dfpi.ca.gov/wp-content/uploa...-Group-LLC.pdf

A lot of info in this, just search "merchant cash"
https://dfpi.ca.gov/wp-content/uploa...01-18-RBLC.pdf

[Chambo]

https://debanked.com/?s=california+license&x=0&y=0

https://dfpi.ca.gov/california-finan...law-about/#Who


1) You all really should be consulting legal professionals for clarity, but I would love for Sean & Debanked to update some current guidance for this as all of their articles are circa 2015-2016 when this was a problem.

2) A "MCA" is not a loan in CA, it appears, and as such is not subject to lending licenses. HOWEVER, it appears they are subject to APR disclosure laws and lending license or not, it appears that a BROKER OF ANY financial product or financial product marketing is required to be licensed in CA, from my interpretation of the Expansion Capital legal filing I found below. Correct me if I am wrong on that last part?

3) It appears as far as "MCAs" are concerned in CA, they are super strict on disclosure notice - although I've read in some places they admit that "APR" can technically not be calculated for a MCA, and if we're being honest "APR" theoretically does not even apply to a MCA product from a financial standpoint, but who knows? CA also appears to be super strict on MCA companies abiding by their specified percentage / reconciliation clauses in order for the contract to be valid.


https://dfpi.ca.gov/2020/04/06/advis...nce-contracts/

https://dfpi.ca.gov/wp-content/uploa...-Group-LLC.pdf

A lot of info in this, just search "merchant cash"
https://dfpi.ca.gov/wp-content/uploa...01-18-RBLC.pdf

Doesn't really matter what Sean and DeBanked say, it matters what the State of California says.

As far as I can decipher, sending to super broker doesn't add any benefit in this case. As of Friday, ALL OFFERS must be sent directly to the merchant, and the funder needs to receive a Received Receipt, before anything written can be sent to any broker, super or mortal. Penalties are far more severe than the other penalties mentioned to date.

In summary, when a Cali merchant is sent to funder, they will tell you "offer was sent" and that's about it until the merchant acknowledges receiving it. No details can be given.

I guess this also means the days of hiding the phone #'s and emails from the funder are over as well.