Looking for the latest insights and trends from the Financial Services and Gambling industry?

The designation of systemic providers marks the beginning of a significant operational shift for financial institutions, which will need to strengthen their understanding of third-party dependencies and the risks that accompany them.

The proposed resolution to decades-old swipe-fee litigation is under fire from merchant groups, intensifying pressure on lawmakers and regulators to intervene in the card-payments market.

The global transition to ISO 20022, the new international standard for electronic data interchange between financial institutions, has entered its home stretch, following confirmation from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (Swift), the European Central Bank (ECB) and the US Federal Reserve regarding full migration timelines for all high-value payment systems. The move establishes ISO 20022 as the single, data-rich format for global payments and securities messages, replacing decades-old MT formats. Swift’s co-existence period between the MT (message type) and ISO 20022 messages will end in November 2025, after which non-compliant institutions will no longer be able to send or receive certain categories of message types. According to Swift, it connects 11,500 institutions across more than 200 countries with 53m+ FIN messages sent every day on average, so for firms engaging in cross-border payments, a risk of non-compliance with ISO 20022 will result in significant operational deficiencies.

The Model Money Transmission Modernization Act (MTMA) is a set of nationwide standards and requirements that were approved by the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) in August 2021. This map outlines state-level adoption of the MTMA.

To establish functional and widely used independent payment services, the blocs of emerging economies must overcome a range of challenges, including inter-alliance disputes, variation in foreign policy priorities and geopolitical pressures.

As Australia moves towards a new regulatory regime for payment service providers (PSPs), the regulator’s focus on pricing, reporting and exploiting financial difficulty challenges organisations to embed stronger controls and forward-looking governance.

On August 13, 2025, the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU) launched a consultation on proposed amendments to the Regulations governing the BankID NBU System. The purpose of these amendments is to bring Ukraine’s digital identification framework into closer alignment with Regulation (EU) No. 910/2014 on electronic identification and trust services (eIDAS) and the Law of Ukraine on Electronic Identification and Trust Services. The consultation closed on August 25, 2025 and, to date, there has not yet been any regulatory movement. The draft text introduces harmonised definitions, sets out detailed contractual obligations and requires the creation of termination plans. By mirroring EU eIDAS standards on digital identity and trust services, these reforms aim to foster greater consumer trust, enhance competition and lay the groundwork for a secure and interoperable open banking system in the country.

The Bank of England’s (BoE) consultation on stablecoins, launched in November 2025, could represent a pivotal moment in determining how digital currencies will function within the UK financial system.

Forthcoming legislation is expected to replicate models adopted in comparable jurisdictions by providing clear regulation of stablecoins and clarifying the boundary between payment stablecoins and securities.

In a decision with wide-reaching implications for consumer rights and digital commerce, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently vacated the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Click-to-Cancel rule, which was finalized in 2024 and final disclosure and cancellation requirements were set to take effect on July 14, 2025. Initially proposed in 2023 as a commonsense extension to the FTC’s Negative Option Rule, which protects consumers from being charged for goods or services they did not explicitly agree to purchase, Click-to-Cancel would have required businesses to allow consumers to cancel subscriptions through the same simple method used to enroll typically, online and in one click. The rule would have applied to any business that offers automatically renewing subscriptions, such as streaming services and “subscribe and save” billing models.