📅 2026 Update: Changes to Financial Regulations Impacting Businesses

Since the original article was published, several important changes have occurred in financial regulations that affect businesses and their operations. These updates include new requirements for investment advisers and developments related to corporate transparency. The earlier article continues further down the page for more background.

🏦 Open Banking Rule Finalized

On October 22, 2024, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) finalized a significant rule under Section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Act. This rule requires financial institutions to allow consumers and authorized third parties access to their financial information. However, as of October 2026, this rule is currently under reconsideration, leaving compliance costs in a state of uncertainty.

📜 Corporate Transparency Act Developments

On January 15, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), confirming that non-exempt U.S. entities and foreign businesses registered in the U.S. must report beneficial ownership information. This requirement, effective since January 1, 2024, aims to enhance transparency in business ownership and combat financial crimes.

🔍 Investment Advisers and AML/CFT Programs

Starting January 1, 2026, certain investment advisers must establish anti-money laundering (AML) and countering the financing of terrorism (CFT) programs, as mandated by a rule from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). This requirement aims to increase oversight and compliance within the financial advisory industry.

⚖️ FTC Noncompete Rule Struck Down

On February 12, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission's rule against most worker noncompete agreements was removed. This decision aligns with recent court rulings that had blocked this regulation nationwide, affecting how businesses can manage employee contracts.

📈 Basel III Capital Requirements Re-Proposal

In March 2026, federal regulators proposed significant changes to capital requirements for banks. These proposals are part of the Basel III Endgame initiative and will reshape how banks calculate their financial resilience against losses, impacting lending practices for businesses.

📌 Key Points Summary

  • 🏦 Open Banking Rule finalized but currently under reconsideration.
  • 📜 Corporate Transparency Act upheld, requiring beneficial ownership reporting.
  • 🔍 Investment advisers must implement AML/CFT programs by January 1, 2026.
  • ⚖️ FTC’s noncompete rule struck down, affecting employee contracts.
  • 📈 Basel III proposals aim to change bank capital requirements.

💡 Tips for Navigating Financial Regulations

Review the details of your situation with an attorney to ensure compliance and understanding of current laws.

🏢 Understand the Corporate Transparency Act

If you run a non-exempt U.S. entity, be aware of the beneficial ownership reporting requirements. These reports help combat financial crime and are crucial for maintaining compliance.

⏳ Keep Up with Open Banking Developments

Monitor the status of the CFPB’s open banking rule as its compliance costs remain uncertain. Understanding these changes will help your business adapt to new requirements.

💳 Prepare for Investment Advisers' AML Programs

If you are an investment adviser, start preparing to implement AML and CFT programs by the January 2026 deadline. This will be essential for compliance and to maintain client trust.

📜 Stay Informed About Noncompete Regulations

With the FTC's noncompete rule being struck down, review any noncompete agreements you have in place. This could affect your ability to enforce certain employment contracts.

📊 Review Capital Requirements for Banks

If your business relies on bank financing, stay informed about the Basel III capital requirements. Changes may affect your access to loans or credit as banks adjust their lending practices.

🏆 Services Ranked by User Reviews (2026)

This section highlights companies providing financial services relevant to the business landscape. The ratings are based on Trustpilot data checked in October 2026, reflecting user feedback. Keep in mind that star ratings can fluctuate, and unhappy customers often leave more reviews, which may skew the data.

🥇 1. Amur Equipment Finance

Amur Equipment Finance holds a Trustpilot score of 4.4. It is known for being an independent equipment finance provider, focusing on equipment-intensive industries. However, it primarily serves the U.S. market, which may limit options for businesses operating internationally.

🥈 2. Wamo

Wamo has a Trustpilot score of 4.5. This company specializes in digital banking services tailored for small businesses, offering multi-currency accounts and payment solutions. Be aware that Wamo primarily serves European markets, which may not align with all U.S.-based business needs.

🆓 Free Guidance from Government Resources

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) provide free resources and guidance on financial regulations. These tools can help businesses understand compliance requirements and navigate the regulatory landscape.

🔎 What to Compare When Choosing Financial Services

  • 💰 Cost of services and fees.
  • 📊 Reputation based on user reviews.
  • 🔍 Range of services offered.
  • 🌍 Geographic availability for your business needs.
  • 📅 Compliance with current regulations.

❓ Frequently Asked Questions

❓ What is the Corporate Transparency Act?

The Corporate Transparency Act requires non-exempt U.S. entities and foreign businesses to report their beneficial ownership information. This helps promote transparency and prevent financial crimes.

🔍 How does the Open Banking Rule affect consumers?

The Open Banking Rule allows consumers to access their financial information and share it with authorized third parties. This can enhance financial services but is currently under reconsideration.

📅 What is the deadline for investment advisers to implement AML programs?

Investment advisers must implement anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism programs by January 1, 2026, as per FinCEN’s final rule.

⚖️ What does the FTC’s decision on noncompete agreements mean?

The FTC's decision to strike down the noncompete rule means that most worker noncompete agreements may no longer be enforceable. This could change how businesses handle employee contracts.

📊 What are the implications of the Basel III proposals?

The Basel III proposals aim to reshape how banks calculate their capital requirements, potentially affecting lending practices. Businesses should stay informed about these changes to understand their financing options.

🏦 Where can I find resources for compliance?

Businesses can access resources from the CFPB and FinCEN for guidance on financial regulations and compliance with new laws impacting their operations.

⚖️ Recent Court Cases Related to Financial Regulations

Recent court rulings have influenced financial regulations, notably regarding the Corporate Transparency Act and noncompete agreements. These decisions are crucial for understanding compliance and operating within the legal framework of business finance.

For more recent rulings, you can browse more rulings on the news page.

End of October 2026 Update







GRAMM LEACH BLILEY ACT TEXT

Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act



A Guide to the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999

The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999, sometimes referred to as the Financial Services Modernization Act, is an act created by the 106th U.S. Congress. The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act was signed into law Bill Clinton, which repealed sections of the 1933 Glass–Steagall. This opened up the market among security companies, insurance companies, ad banking companies. The former Glass–Steagall Act did not allow any single institution from performing as any sort of combination of an insurance company, commercial bank, or an investment bank.

The Gramm Leach Bliley Act of 1999 allowed securities firms, insurance companies, commercial banks, and investment banks, to consolidate if desired. The Gramm Leach Bliley Act of 1999 was passed to legalize mergers between these organizations on a permanent basis. The Gramm Leach Bliley Act of 1999 also repealed the Glass–Steagall Act's conflict regarding interest prohibitions against simultaneous service by an employee, director, or an  officer of a securities firm as an employee, director, or an officer of any member bank.

Background on the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act 

The banking industry had wanted to repeal the 1933 Glass–Steagall Act since around the 1980s. The Congressional Research Service created a report in 1987 that researched the cases for and against keeping the Glass–Steagall act.

Separate versions of the Gramm Leach Bliley Act of 1999 were introduced to the Senate by Phil Gramm, and by Jim Leach in the House. Representative Thomas J. Bliley, Jr., the House Commerce Committee’s Chairman, was the third legislator associated to the Act. The House approved its version of the Act on July 1, 1999 with a bipartisan vote of 343-86, two months after the Senate’s version of the bill had passed with a 54–44 vote which essentially followed party lines.

When both chambers could not decide on a joint version of the Gramm Leach Bliley Act of 1999, the House voted (241-132) on July 30 to tell the House’s negotiators to work to pass a law that ensured that consumers could enjoy financial and medical privacy along with strong competition and non-discriminatory and equal access to the economic opportunities and financial services in their communities.

The bill was then moved to a conference committee between the two chambers to figure out the differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. Democrats agreed to support it once Republicans agreed to address certain concerns about privacy in the bill and also strengthen provisions regarding the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act. The conference committee worked to finish making changes to the bill and on November 4, the final bill, which resolved the differences between the two versions, was passed in the Senate with a 90-8 vote and in the House with a 362-57. The passed bill was then signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999 as the Gramm Leach Bliley Act of 1999.

Resulting Changes of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act 

Many of the largest brokerages, insurance companies, and banks wanted the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act to pass at the time. The justification for this was that individuals will typically put more money into various investments when the economy is healthy and strong, but if the economy is poor and weak, these potential investors will place the majority of their money into savings accounts. With the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, these investors could be able both save and invest without using different financial institutions, allowing the institution to thrive in both bad and good economic times.

Before the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, the majority of financial services companies already offered both investment and saving opportunities to their clients. Furthermore, before the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act passed, there were a variety of relaxations found in the Glass–Steagall Act. An example of this was a few years before, commercial Banks could pursue investment banking, and banks could begin insurance and stock brokerages. Insurance underwriting was the single operation that was not allowed, which was rarely done even after passing the Gramm Leach Bliley Act of 1999. 

A lot of consolidation and merging happened in the financial services industry subsequently, but not to the extent that some had expected. For example, retail banks typically do not buy insurance underwriters, since they look for more profitable businesses such as insurance brokerages where they sell products from other insurance companies. Retail banks did not quickly package insurance and investment products in a way that was convincing and appealing to consumers. 

Brokerage companies also had a hard time finding a way into banking, because these organizations are not known for having large branches and back shop footprints. More recently, banks have started a trend of buying other banks, but they still have less success integrating with other organizations such as insurance or investment companies. Many of these banks have gone beyond their normal scope and tried getting into investment banking, but many have found it difficult to easily package these products with their banking services, without having to resort to concerning tie-ins that can be the cause of scandals.

Restrictions under the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act 

In order for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to successfully pass, an amendment was made to the bill which stated that mergers could not be cleared to go ahead if any of the involved financial holding institutions, or any affiliates thereof, received a rating that was less than satisfactory at the most recent CRA exam. This mean that any merger could only go on ahead if it had received the strict approval of the necessary regulatory bodies that were in charge for the Community Reinvestment Act. This was a very controversial issue, and Presidential Clinton’s administration stressed that it any legislation that tried to scale back minority-lending requirements would get vetoed.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act did not get rid of restrictions that were placed by the Bank Holding Company Act which stopped financial institutions and banks from owning any non-financial companies. The Act conversely prohibited corporations that were outside of the finance or banking industry from trying to enter commercial or retail banking. 

Some restrictions have been kept in the Gramm Leach Bliley Act of 1999 in order to maintain some level of separation between the commercial and investment banking functions of a company. The majority of the debate surrounding financial privacy is centered specifically on preventing or allowing the insurance, banking, or brokerage divisions of a company from functioning and working together.

When looking at compliance, the main rules under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act are the Financial Privacy Rule. This rule governs the disclosure and collection of personal financial information of customers by financial institutions. The rule also applies to corporations, regardless of if they are financial organizations, who obtain such data. A second major rule is the Safeguards Rule, which requires all financial companies to create, apply and uphold protections to defend customer information. The Safeguards Rule does not only apply financial companies that collect data from their own consumers, but also to appraisers, credit reporting agencies, mortgage brokers, and other financial institutions that obtain customer info from other financial companies.

Financial Privacy Rule in the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act

The Financial Privacy Rule involves having financial institutions provide each customer with a privacy notice given at the time the company establishes a customer relationship and annually after that. The privacy notice has to explain what information is collected about the consumer, how that information gets used, who or where it gets shared with, and how the company protects the information.

The notice also must point out the right of the consumer to opt out of the data being given to unaffiliated parties according to the regulations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. If the privacy policy changes at any time, the consumer has to be notified for acceptance of the changes. Each time a privacy notice is reconstructed, the customer has the right to choose to opt out. Any unaffiliated parties that receive nonpublic data are accountable to the consumer’s acceptance terms under the original agreement. Ultimately, this rule creates a privacy policy agreement between the consumer and the company that protects of the consumer’s nonpublic personal information.



Safeguards Rule in the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act

The Safeguards Rule makes financial institutions responsible for developing and writing an information security plan that discusses how the institution is equipped for protecting client’s personal information and how they plan to continue doing so. This plan must designate at least one employee who will manage safeguards, construct risk management on all departments that handle the information, create a program to secure information and have it monitored and tested, and change any safeguards that are needed in order to be up to regulation.

The purpose of the rule is to protecting the institution’s clients. It forces financial companies to closely examine how they deal with a client’s private data and perform risk analysis on these processes. Because of this, all financial institutions must make an effort to some extent in order to correctly follow the Gramm Leach Bliley Act of 1999.