
Preparing for BNPL regulation: What firms need to do now: By Ben O'Brien
The arrival of formal regulation for Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) products is no longer a question of if, but when. With the Treasury's May 2025 consultation response, the direction is this: by mid-2026, third-party BNPL lenders will fall within the scope of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).
This change brings with it a full set of regulatory requirements—covering affordability, creditworthiness, redress, disclosures, and governance. While many firms are familiar with the general framework, the pace and detail of implementation demand serious attention.
Risk leaders now face a critical window to build a strategy that aligns commercial goals with regulatory readiness.
Scope of the new BNPL regime
From mid-2026, third-party BNPL providers must be authorised by the FCA and comply with its rules on affordability, creditworthiness, consumer duty, complaints, disclosures, and more:
Mandatory, proportionate affordability and creditworthiness checks
Firms must demonstrate verifiable checks at the point of decisioning, aligned to individual circumstances, not just product type.
Firms must demonstrate verifiable checks at the point of decisioning, aligned to individual circumstances, not just product type. Access to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS)
BNPL customers can now escalate complaints to FOS, increasing the importance of auditable redress processes and timely resolution.
BNPL customers can now escalate complaints to FOS, increasing the importance of auditable redress processes and timely resolution. Tailored disclosure requirements for digital-first products
The FCA will introduce a bespoke regime focused on real-world comprehension — not just information delivery. Firms will need to test and evidence understanding.
The FCA will introduce a bespoke regime focused on real-world comprehension — not just information delivery. Firms will need to test and evidence understanding. Extension of Section 75 protections to BNPL agreements
Providers will be jointly liable for qualifying claims, requiring clear merchant oversight, governance controls, and capital planning to manage new exposure.
While third-party BNPL is the initial focus, merchant-offered BNPL products remain outside the perimeter for now. This exemption, based on Article 60F(2) of the Regulated Activities Order, is under review and could be revisited if scale or harm increases.
What this means for compliance and risk leaders
The FCA isn't looking for surface-level compliance. It expects firms to demonstrate that processes are working and that consumers are genuinely protected.
Affordability frameworks must evolve
Checks must be proportionate and verifiable, with models recalibrated to reflect customer circumstances. Even low-value lending must evidence the potential for harm reduction.
Complaint handling will need to be FOS-ready
This includes robust audit trails, clear redress pathways, MI reporting on themes, and training on FOS processes.
Joint liability introduces new exposure
Providers must enhance governance around merchant partnerships, define liability clearly in contracts, and plan for potential claims in their capital models.
Joined-up governance is essential
Effective programmes will require close collaboration across credit, compliance, legal, product, and ops teams—with clear ownership under SM&CR.
Disclosures must reflect real-world understanding
It's not just about format. The FCA expects firms to test, monitor, and evidence comprehension—particularly for vulnerable customers.
Making best use of the Temporary Permissions Regime
The FCA will launch a Temporary Permissions Regime (TPR) to support the transition. Providers must be ready to act quickly when the window opens.
Prepare for registration
Ensure that internal records, model documentation, and business models are clearly aligned with regulatory expectations.
Conduct a readiness assessment
Review decisioning processes, affordability checks, complaints management, and financial crime controls.
Plan for dual-track execution
Meet TPR requirements while simultaneously building toward full authorisation.
Engage early with the FCA
Establish open communication lines to reduce ambiguity and show proactivity.
Plan for contingencies
Prepare wind-down plans, customer messaging, and backup procedures in case of registration delays or rejections.
Innovation and consumer protection can coexist
The decision to exclude some legacy Consumer Credit Act requirements reflects the unique nature of BNPL: short-term, interest-free, and often accessed via digital channels.
This creates space for a more relevant, user-centric approach to disclosures but it also raises the bar.
Risk and compliance teams should work with product, legal, and design leads to ensure communications are:
Integrated into real customer journeys
Mobile-friendly and accessible
Prompted by user behaviour
Supported by outcome-based testing and complaints data
Those who treat disclosures as a compliance task may struggle. Those who invest in relevance and usability will have stronger customer engagement and defensibility.
Merchant carve-out and the risk of market distortion
The decision to exclude merchant-led BNPL from the regulatory scope has sparked debate. Without oversight, merchant-offered credit could create competitive asymmetry and raise consumer protection concerns.
Risk leaders should:
Monitor merchant product developments and prepare for potential perimeter expansion
Review all third-party merchant partnerships for regulatory dependencies
Revisit financial promotions and credit broking arrangements, particularly where merchants promote BNPL products without broking permissions
Regulatory costs and anticipated market impact
The Treasury's impact assessment estimates:
An Equivalent Annual Net Direct Cost to Business (EANDCB) of £2.3 million
A Net Present Value of -£20.1 million over the assessment period
over the assessment period Authorisation application fees: £5,000 to £25,000
Annual supervision fees: £10,000 to £50,000
Technology upgrades: £500,000 to £2 million per provider for systems supporting affordability, reporting, and complaints
per provider for systems supporting affordability, reporting, and complaints Section 75 exposure: Estimated at 0.5% to 1.2% of transaction values
With the UK's BNPL market valued at £20 billion annually, sector-wide exposure to Section 75 alone could exceed £100 million.
Consolidation is expected. Government modelling suggests 20–30% of providers may exit the market post-regulation. But with global BNPL volumes growing rapidly, those who remain stand to benefit from a stronger, more trusted marketplace.
How leading firms are responding
Some providers have already started adjusting:
Klarna
Following regulatory scrutiny in Sweden, Klarna UK introduced income verification, real-time spend tracking, and risk-based onboarding.
Monzo Flex
Built affordability into product design from the outset, with integrated credit reporting and real-time tracking.
PayPal
Adopted a cross-functional compliance strategy with specialist teams, training, and documentation of governance processes.
The clock is ticking and the gap between those who prepare and those who delay will widen fast. For risk leaders, this is a chance to go beyond baseline compliance, strengthening frameworks, improving customer outcomes, and shaping the future of BNPL in a regulated environment.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
23 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Revealed: The staggering amount Florian Wirtz will be paid a WEEK if he completes Liverpool move - with German set to earn more than Virgil van Dijk
Florian Wirtz is set to earn a staggering salary if he completes a move to Liverpool this summer. Arne Slot is looking to splash out to improve an already impressive squad after they won the Premier League and a deal for German playmaker Wirtz is edging closer. They would have to break the Premier League transfer record to secure Wirtz's signature after Bayer Leverkusen priced the 22-year-old at £120million. Liverpool have offered £100m plus an extra £13m in add ons but the German side are holding out on a fee which would overtake the £115m which Chelsea paid Brighton for Moses Caicedo. The attacking midfielder has made it clear that Liverpool are his choice and a move is reportedly 'considered a done deal'. The Reds will also spend big on Wirtz's salary, with the German set to be handed a five-year contract worth £355,000-a-week, according to Bild. The enormous salary would make him Liverpool's second highest paid player, above the £350,000-a-week Virgil van Dijk earns, but just below Mohamed Salah's weekly £400,000 earnings. Although Liverpool will have to break the bank for Wirtz, he previously admitted he is not motivated by money. 'I don't even care about how much money I have in my account or what I might earn in the future,' he told Sports Illustrated Germany this year. 'Of course, you should make sure you get a good contract. But for me, the sporting perspective is much more important than the money. 'And I think my parents would be angry if I were too fixated on money. After I moved to Leverkusen at 16, my parents managed my salary and sent me €150 (£126) a month. 'That shaped me. It was important to my parents that I didn't do anything stupid with my salary.' The German star is edging closer to an Anfield switch and has been convinced by Slot's clear plan of where he will play in Liverpool's set-up as a No 10. And on Wednesday, Wirtz appeared to nod when asked by MailSport if he was 'excited for Liverpool ' after Germany's Nations League defeat by Portugal. Wirtz would become Liverpool's third signing of the summer, and their second from Leverkusen after the champions scooped Jeremie Frimpong for £29.5m. The right wing back penned a five-year contract at Anfield last week after completing his medical last month.


Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
No more leprechaun economics: Ireland's tax swindle is finally ending
Donald Trump has sent Ireland to the naughty step. Once the altar boy of American commerce, Dublin now finds itself blacklisted alongside China, Germany and Vietnam, each a prime candidate for tariffs and sanctions. The offence? Running a surplus with the United States. On the face of it, the complaint seems petty. One country sells more than it buys. So what? But Ireland's problem, like the others on Trump's list, is that its surplus rests on a creed that has fallen out of favour. As offshoring hollowed out Middle America, the old Clinton mantra 'It's the economy, stupid' has begun to sound rather less clever than it once did. That, at least, is the mood in Trump's Washington. And judging by his campaign-trail fixation with the word tariff, many Americans agree: a reckoning is overdue. Ireland offers a particularly inviting target. Its surplus owes less to tangible exports than to tax gymnastics. A pill is made in Ireland for 50 cents, sold to a sister company (also in Ireland) for €10, and then shipped to the global market at the same price. The profit is booked in Dublin, while tax collectors elsewhere are left out of pocket. The trick doesn't stop there. Intellectual property is shifted to Irish subsidiaries, global sales are routed through Irish entities, and profits vanish into low or no-tax jurisdictions. Together, these sleights of hand form what we're invited to call the Irish economic miracle – a miracle that, by one estimate, deprives other countries of nearly $20 billion a year in tax revenue. The question being asked in Washington is: who benefits? Ireland, clearly. One in every eight euros of its tax revenue now comes from US firms. That's a fivefold increase since 2010, driven by Ireland's famously 'competitive' tax regime. It accounts for a large slice of a €150 billion bilateral surplus. When Irish Taoiseach Micheál Martin visited the Oval Office in March, Trump put it plainly: 'We do have a massive deficit with Ireland, because Ireland was very smart. They took our pharmaceutical companies away.' It's hard to argue with the logic. Ireland has been undeniably clever at attracting American capital. Spending it is another matter. Much of the money sits on Irish books without generating the economic activity one might expect. The state's coffers may be overflowing, but the windfall is narrowly concentrated. Public spending, as ever, has been handled with something shy of brilliance. From roads and hospitals to housing and energy, the services most visible to the public have seen little improvement, despite years of surging revenues. Meanwhile, resources have been channelled into more headline-friendly ventures: a €350,000 bike shed outside parliament; a vast new hospital project already among Europe's most expensive; and billions annually to accommodate asylum applicants – most of whom, the government has conceded, are economic migrants. The miracle, it seems, left little room for prudence. As every lottery winner learns, easy money tends to breed excess. But with full coffers, Ireland could afford to paper over the cracks. Meanwhile, American tech and pharma giants have flourished. Apple, Microsoft, Pfizer and others have routed billions through Ireland, to the delight of shareholders and pension funds. If Trump moves to close loopholes or impose tariffs, these are the interests he'll have to console ahead of the midterms. The losers, predictably, are the American workers left behind by the long, slow flight of industry and tax revenue. Worse off still are the countries quietly drained by Ireland's magic act. The sums involved are vast. The structures that move them are so complex they can feel impossibly abstract. But the consequences are not. According to modelling by the Universities of St Andrews and Leicester, this tax loss has deprived more than 100,000 children of school attendance and some 1.1 million people of access to basic sanitation. Quibble with the methods if you like, but the core truth is hard to deny: when profits are rerouted, people are short-changed. Not that Dublin seems overly troubled. Only last month, Ireland's Taoiseach declared: 'Ireland earns its living from an open and fair approach to world trade.' The most pious nations often turn out to be the most artful. Ireland rarely misses a chance to sermonise on Gaza, climate justice, or whichever cause currently allows it to cast itself as Europe's moral compass. But as La Rochefoucauld noted, hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue. And by that measure, Ireland has paid handsomely.


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Warning airport staff strike could ‘ground planes and passengers'
Over 800 workers across five companies at Glasgow Airport may strike due to pay disputes, potentially disrupting summer travel. Unite the union will ballot staff at Glasgow Airport Ltd, ICTS Central Search, Swissport, Menzies Aviation, and Falck for industrial action if disputes aren't resolved in two weeks. Swissport workers are in dispute over rotas and work-life balance, while ICTS Central Search workers are protesting under-staffing, working conditions, and pay. Workers employed by Glasgow Airport Limited and Falck firefighters rejected a 3.6% pay increase, and Menzies Aviation workers turned down a 4.25% uplift. Unite general secretary Sharon Graham stated the companies can afford better pay and conditions, accusing them of prioritising profits over fair wages. Holidaymakers warned that airport strikes could disrupt summer getaways