On June 16, 2026, Vermont enacted H.648, Act 142, which will require certain financial services providers and brokers to become licensed by the Vermont Department of Financial Regulation (DFR) and comply with numerous disclosure and operational requirements for sales-based financing and factoring transactions. The new law takes effect July 1, 2027.

Scope of Vermont’s H.648

Financial services “providers” subject to the new law will include persons that fund, or make a “specific offer” to fund, a “commercial financing,” as well as persons (like brokers) that solicit commercial financings or make or provide offers for commercial financing. Under the statute, “commercial financing” includes “sales-based financing” and “factoring transactions.”

  • A “sales-based financing” is a transaction that is repaid over time as a percentage of sales of revenue where the payment increases or decreases based on the volume of sales made or revenue received by the recipient of the financing. The term includes transactions with fixed payment amounts that are adjusted to reflect sales volumes via a “true-up” mechanism and transactions structured as a sale or assignment of future accounts receivable, future revenues, or future sales (like merchant cash advances).
  • A “factoring transaction” is an accounts receivable purchase transaction that includes an agreement to purchase, transfer, assign, or sell a legally enforceable claim for payment for goods that have been provided or services that have been performed but for which payment has not been made. (A purchase of accounts receivable in connection with purchase and sale of substantially all of a business or business line is not considered a factoring transaction under the statute.)

Key exemptions exist for depository institutions, governmental entities, seller financing, and transactions amounting to $1 million or more that are not primarily for personal, family, or household use.

Licensing Requirement

Vermont’s new law will expressly pull sales-based financing and factoring transactions into Vermont’s existing licensing regime by requiring a provider to be licensed as a lender under 8 V.S.A. § 2200 et seq. before providing commercial financing or extending an offer for commercial financing to persons in Vermont. Similarly, brokers will be required to have a loan solicitation license to solicit commercial financing or to make or extend offers of commercial financing on behalf of third parties.

Standardized Disclosures

In addition to licensing requirements, H.648 will require providers to give standardized Truth in Lending Act-like disclosures to the proposed recipient of financing at the time they extend a specific offer. The recipient must sign the disclosure before providers issue commercial financing.

Like commercial financing disclosure laws in California and New York, Vermont’s statute will require providers to disclose an estimated APR that is calculated (depending on transaction type) using methods from Regulation Z and the “finance charge,” which includes all charges that would be included under Regulation Z (12 CFR § 1026.4), and, for factoring transactions, the discount taken on the face value of the accounts receivable.

In addition to the estimated APR and “finance charge,” providers must also disclose the total amount of the commercial financing; the total repayment amount (the disbursement amount plus the finance charge); the estimated term and payment amounts (for sales-based financing transactions); a description of all potential fees and charges not included in the “finance charge”; and a description of any prepayment penalties, collateral requirements, and the receivables purchased (for factoring transactions).

The statute also expressly authorizes the Commissioner of the DFR to adopt rules to implement the statute’s requirements, including rules to prescribe particular disclosure formatting requirements, define terms, and detail enforcement of the statute.

Key Requirements and Prohibitions

In addition to licensing and disclosures requirements, H.648 will impose several notable operational requirements and prohibitions in covered transactions:

  • Automatic Debiting. A covered provider is prohibited from setting up mechanisms to automatically debit funds from a recipient’s deposit account, unless the provider holds a validly perfected, first-priority security interest in “the recipient’s account.”1
  • Confessions of Judgment. Confessions of judgment contract provisions are prohibited and will be void and unenforceable.
  • Vermont Law and Forum. Agreements for commercial financing must be governed by Vermont law, and disputes arising under those agreements must be brought in Vermont courts. Additionally, agreements for commercial financing cannot require face-to-face arbitration proceedings outside the state. Any contractual provision to the contrary is void and unenforceable.

Takeaways for Businesses

Vermont joins a growing list of states working to regulate commercial financing transactions. However, including factoring transactions in Vermont’s law is notable because it may apply to companies that historically have not viewed themselves (or particular lines of their business) as subject to lending regulation.

Companies operating in Vermont may see a time-consuming and costly licensing process and should consider planning for operational changes necessary to comply with the new law, as well as monitoring whether the Commissioner of the DFR proposes rules that would impose additional requirements. Stakeholders may also wish to review their commercial financing disclosure forms, agreements, and business practices in Vermont.


1 See 8 V.S.A. § 2247(d).

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Timothy A. Butler Timothy A. Butler

Tim Butler helps companies thrive by developing tailored strategies to address their regulatory compliance challenges and vigorously defending them in government enforcement actions and bet-the-company lawsuits.

A former prosecuting attorney for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and former senior official in the Georgia…

Tim Butler helps companies thrive by developing tailored strategies to address their regulatory compliance challenges and vigorously defending them in government enforcement actions and bet-the-company lawsuits.

A former prosecuting attorney for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and former senior official in the Georgia Attorney General’s Office, Tim has led the defense of dozens of government investigations and enforcement actions brought by the FTC, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and the various state attorneys general. Tim also regularly defends clients in bet-the-company lawsuits, including complex business disputes and consumer class actions alleging privacy, false advertising, and unfair or deceptive business practice claims.

Tim is an experienced guide for companies struggling with regulatory complexity. He offers clear advice that helps his clients meet the demands of the ever-growing set of laws and regulations governing data privacy and cybersecurity, advertising and marketing practices, and consumer financial products and services. Clients rely on Tim’s business-minded and practical strategies to address their most difficult regulatory compliance challenges.

A graduate of the University of Chicago and Stanford Law School, Tim is a prolific author and regularly speaks to industry and trade groups about the evolving privacy landscape, about cutting-edge issues affecting payments and fintech companies, and about developments at the FTC, the CFPB, and within the state attorneys general community.

Photo of Matthew White Matthew White

Matt White guides clients through regulatory compliance challenges and represents clients in regulatory and civil investigations and litigation.

Matt has counseled fintech and payment companies on regulatory compliance matters, including those involving the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the…

Matt White guides clients through regulatory compliance challenges and represents clients in regulatory and civil investigations and litigation.

Matt has counseled fintech and payment companies on regulatory compliance matters, including those involving the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the Truth in Lending Act, and their respective implementing regulations (Regulations E, V, P, and Z). Adept with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) Prepaid Rule, Matt has provided guidance regarding prepaid cards and related compliance.

Matt has also aided clients in developing regulatory compliant products and functionalities, including an earned wage access program, reimbursement prepaid card programs, new merchant cash advance products, and tokenized payment capabilities. In connection with products on which Matt advises, he has also negotiated high-stakes technology sales agreements involving complex regulatory issues, including compliance with data privacy laws, financial regulations, and card network rules.

Beyond helping clients strategize for regulatory complexity, Matt also helps clients navigate government investigations and enforcement actions brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), CFPB, and state attorneys general.

Photo of Tessa Cierny Tessa Cierny

Tessa Cierny advises companies on financial technology and data privacy issues. She has experience counseling companies on state and federal regulatory compliance, including existing and emerging privacy laws, such as the E.U.’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the California Consumer Privacy Act

Tessa Cierny advises companies on financial technology and data privacy issues. She has experience counseling companies on state and federal regulatory compliance, including existing and emerging privacy laws, such as the E.U.’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), as well as financial and banking regulations, such as the CFPB’s Section 1071 Small Business Lending Rule (Regulation B). In addition, she assists clients in defending business disputes and data breach litigation.

Prior to joining Greenberg Traurig, she served as global records manager for WestRock, where she developed and implemented email and data retention policies for global data privacy regulation compliance. In this role, she also advised on data privacy concerns related to data retention, data loss prevention, and data governance.

Photo of Cody B. Davis Cody B. Davis

Cody Davis advises clients on regulatory compliance, data privacy, and consumer protection matters within the financial technology sector, with a focus on payments, emerging platforms, and evolving regulatory frameworks. He works with companies navigating complex federal and state requirements, including regulatory compliance, government…

Cody Davis advises clients on regulatory compliance, data privacy, and consumer protection matters within the financial technology sector, with a focus on payments, emerging platforms, and evolving regulatory frameworks. He works with companies navigating complex federal and state requirements, including regulatory compliance, government investigations, and risk management across the fintech ecosystem.

Cody also has prior experience working with clients in the health care space on mergers and acquisitions as well as regulatory compliance with HIPAA, state telehealth rules, and facility licensure requirements.