State vs. Federal Oversight in Fintech | What Companies Need to Know in 2025

Navigating the patchwork of state regulations in the absence of uniform federal guidance

When it comes to financial innovation in the United States, fintech companies often move faster than the laws meant to regulate them. In 2025, that tension has only intensified. As the industry continues to evolve, shaped by embedded finance, Artificial Intelligence (AI) driven underwriting, digital identity, and alternative credit models, so too has the regulatory landscape. But instead of a clear and cohesive framework, fintech companies find themselves caught in a fragmented web of state-by-state requirements, layered over federal ambiguity, especially in the wake of a weakening or restructured Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

If you're leading compliance, legal, or operations at a fintech firm, understanding how to navigate this state-federal dynamic is not optional; it’s essential.

Federal Oversight | A Shrinking Anchor in a Rapidly Evolving Space

Historically, federal regulators have played a stabilizing role in consumer financial protection. The CFPB, OCC, FDIC, FTC, and others have provided foundational rules through acts like TILA, ECOA, UDAAP, and BSA/AML. But in recent years, and especially into 2025, this federal anchor has begun to drift.

• The CFPB’s authority has been narrowed, with fewer enforcement actions and uncertain leadership. Key areas like small-dollar lending, buy-now-pay-later (BNPL), and credit reporting are now left with regulatory blind spots.
• The OCC’s fintech charter program remains in limbo after years of litigation and a lack of bipartisan support.
• Emerging areas such as AI in lending or decentralized finance (DeFi) have little to no comprehensive federal rulemaking, leaving interpretation up to the states or case-by-case enforcement actions.

The result? Fintech companies can no longer rely only on federal law or interpretation as a comprehensive compliance framework, particularly if they are operating across multiple states.

State-by-State Oversight | The Patchwork That Cannot Be Ignored

Without a uniform federal standard, the states have filled the vacuum and not gently.

In 2025 and the upcoming year, every state with a Department of Financial Regulation or Consumer Affairs will take its approach to fintech oversight. For lenders, payments firms, and digital wallets alike, this translates into:

• Licensing Fragmentation: A product offered nationally may require numerous separate licenses for mortgage and consumer lending, money transmitter, or debt collection licenses, each with their own:
  
  • Fee caps and APR thresholds
  • Required disclosures
  • Examination schedules
  • Annual report formats
  • Advertising restrictions
  • Other State-Specific Requirements 
• State-Level UDAAP Interpretations: States like California, New York, and Massachusetts have expanded their own unfair or deceptive acts and practices rules, often going beyond federal interpretations, meaning what’s compliant under federal law may still expose you to enforcement at the state level.
• Emerging Laws in Privacy and Data: As the federal government delays a comprehensive data privacy act, California (CPRA), Virginia (VCDPA), Colorado (CPA), and others are aggressively enforcing consumer data protections, requiring companies to align with consent, notice, and opt-out obligations that vary by jurisdiction.

Real-World Examples in 2025

1. A digital lending platform specializing in credit builder loans recently underwent coordinated regulatory examinations by Texas, Washington, and Michigan. Despite the product having previously undergone internal review aligned with federal standards under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), each state regulator identified distinct compliance deficiencies. Specifically, Texas flagged inconsistencies in late fee disclosures under Tex. Fin. Code § 342.453, Washington raised concerns related to APR calculation methodologies under WAC 208-620, and Michigan cited potential violations of state-specific lending thresholds under Mich. Comp. Laws § 487.2051.
2. This divergence underscores a critical reality for multi-state lenders: even when a product complies with federal consumer credit laws, states may interpret or enforce lending practices differently, particularly concerning fee disclosures, APR computations, and consumer protection thresholds. Such fragmentation can expose nationally offered products to regulatory risk on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, requiring enhanced legal mapping and state-specific compliance controls.
3. A fintech using AI for fraud detection faced scrutiny from New York DFS and California DFPI, demanding algorithmic fairness audits that went beyond BSA/AML federal guidance.
4. A startup providing early wage access (EWA) had to restructure its product entirely in five states that deemed it “credit” rather than a payroll advance, while others allowed it with simple notice requirements.

What Fintech Companies Need to Do Now

Given this environment, compliance leaders must think like architects, not firefighters. Here’s how:

Invest in Licensing Strategy Tools
Don’t just “check the box.” Use smart licensing platforms or consultants who can build and maintain a centralized license tracking system, including renewal deadlines, reporting requirements, and regulator contact points.

Develop a State Law Matrix
Create a living document that maps your product’s features against state-level lending, privacy, and marketing laws. This is crucial for marketing teams, product managers, and compliance reviews before launch.

Proactively Engage Regulators
Many state regulators appreciate transparency and are open to dialogue. Set up quarterly check-ins or send white papers describing your model, especially if your product is new to the market.

Integrate UDAAP and Fairness Testing
Don’t assume federal UDAAP rules are your ceiling. Build testing protocols that include state-specific interpretations and bake that logic into your compliance management system (CMS).

Staff Up Accordingly
The “generalist compliance officer” model is dying. Companies operating nationally will need state specialization, whether in-house or outsourced, to keep pace with the regulatory complexity.

‍

The path forward for fintech is not deregulation, it’s diversified regulation. And in 2025, that means your company needs to be nimble, informed, and deeply embedded in the regulatory ecosystems of every state you touch.

Until the federal government steps in with uniform standards (if it ever does), the burden of alignment, disclosure, and oversight will fall squarely on FinTechs themselves.

Compliance is no longer a reactive function; it’s a strategic capability.

Need help building a state law compliance matrix or optimizing your CMS for multi-jurisdictional oversight? Let's connect.

‍