📅 2026 Update: Key Changes to Financial Regulations

Since the original article on the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act was written, several significant regulatory changes have occurred that impact how businesses operate in the financial space. These updates reflect ongoing efforts to enhance consumer protection and financial transparency. The earlier article continues further down the page for more context on this topic.

🔑 Open Banking Rule Finalized

On October 22, 2024, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) finalized the Open Banking Rule. This rule requires financial institutions to give consumers and authorized third parties access to their financial information. Although it was meant to promote competition and innovation, the rule is currently under reconsideration, making compliance uncertain.

📈 Investment Advisers and AML Programs

Starting January 1, 2026, investment advisers must implement anti-money laundering (AML) and countering the financing of terrorism (CFT) programs. This requirement, issued by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), aims to strengthen the financial system by preventing illicit activities. Costs for compliance will depend on the size and complexity of the firm.

🏢 Corporate Transparency Act Developments

On January 15, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). This ruling confirmed that non-exempt U.S. entities and foreign businesses registered in the U.S. must report beneficial ownership information. This enhances transparency in business operations, impacting how companies disclose their ownership structures.

⚖️ FTC Noncompete Rule Struck Down

On February 12, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission's rule against most worker noncompete agreements was removed. This change aligns with recent court rulings that had already blocked the rule nationwide. As a result, businesses will need to reconsider how they use noncompete clauses in employment contracts.

📊 Basel III Capital Requirements Re-Proposal

In March 2026, federal regulators proposed new capital requirements as part of the Basel III Endgame initiative. These proposals aim to change how banks calculate their financial reserves against losses. This reshaping of regulations could impact how businesses seek financing from banks.

📌 Key Points to Remember

  • 🔑 Open Banking Rule now finalized but under reconsideration.
  • 📈 Investment advisers must establish AML/CFT programs by January 1, 2026.
  • 🏢 Corporate Transparency Act is upheld, requiring beneficial ownership reporting.
  • ⚖️ FTC's noncompete rule has been struck down.
  • 📊 Basel III proposals could reshape bank financing calculations.

💡 Tips for Navigating Financial Regulations

Reviewing your specific situation with an attorney can help clarify complex financial regulations.

🏦 Understand Open Banking Implications

Businesses should be aware of the Open Banking Rule and its requirements. Even though compliance costs are uncertain, understanding how this rule affects consumer access to financial data is essential for all financial institutions.

📋 Prepare for AML Program Implementation

Investment advisers should start preparing for the January 1, 2026 deadline for AML programs. It is important to assess compliance needs early and allocate the necessary resources for effective implementation.

🛡️ Stay Updated on Corporate Transparency Requirements

With the CTA now upheld, businesses must ensure they are ready to report beneficial ownership information. This requires a clear understanding of what entities are exempt and how to prepare the required reports.

✍️ Review Employment Contracts

Companies should review their employment contracts and noncompete clauses following the FTC's rule removal. Understanding the legal implications of this change is crucial for drafting compliant agreements.

💼 Monitor Basel III Developments

Stay informed about the Basel III capital requirements proposals. Understanding these changes can help businesses better navigate their financial strategies and relationships with banks.

🏆 Services Ranked by User Reviews (2026)

This section highlights some significant services relevant to the topics of financial regulations and business operations. The services listed here have been rated based on user reviews as of October 2026. Star ratings can change over time, and it’s important to remember that unhappy customers often leave more reviews, which can skew perceptions.

🥇 1. Amur Equipment Finance

Amur Equipment Finance has been rated 4.4 on Trustpilot. It is known for being an independent equipment finance provider that serves equipment-intensive industries. However, it primarily operates in the U.S. market, which may limit its appeal for businesses looking for international options.

🥈 2. Wamo

Wamo holds a 4.5 rating on Trustpilot. It specializes in digital banking services tailored for small businesses, offering multi-currency accounts and payment solutions. While it provides innovative solutions, it primarily serves European markets, which may not align with all U.S. business needs.

🆓 Government and Nonprofit Resources

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) offer free resources and guidance on financial regulations. These can assist businesses in understanding compliance requirements related to the Open Banking Rule and AML programs.

🔎 Comparison Factors

  • 📊 Service ratings and review counts.
  • 🏦 Types of financial services offered.
  • 🌍 Geographic availability and market focus.
  • 💰 Cost structures and potential hidden fees.
  • 🛡️ Compliance with current regulations.

❓ Frequently Asked Questions

❓ What is the Open Banking Rule?

The Open Banking Rule requires financial institutions to provide consumers and authorized third parties access to their financial information. This rule aims to enhance competition and innovation in financial services.

🔍 How do I comply with the Corporate Transparency Act?

Non-exempt U.S. entities and foreign businesses must report beneficial ownership information to FinCEN’s confidential database. This requirement took effect on January 1, 2024.

💼 What are the costs associated with implementing AML programs?

The costs for establishing anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism programs vary based on the size and complexity of the investment firm. It is essential for firms to budget accordingly for compliance.

📋 What should businesses know about the FTC's noncompete clause ruling?

The FTC's recent ruling against most worker noncompete agreements has been struck down, meaning businesses can reconsider how they use such clauses in employment contracts without federal restrictions.

⚖️ How are Basel III proposals impacting banks?

The Basel III proposals aim to reshape how banks calculate their financial reserves against losses. This can affect how businesses secure financing and the terms offered by banks.

📅 What resources are available for understanding financial regulations?

The CFPB and FinCEN provide free resources and guidance to help businesses navigate financial regulations, including the Open Banking Rule and AML requirements.

⚖️ Recent Court Cases Related to Financial Regulations

Recent court rulings have significantly impacted financial regulations and business operations. These rulings address issues like the constitutionality of laws affecting corporate transparency and the enforceability of employment contracts.

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.