New York MCA law tracker: bills, rulings and enforcement

By Solomon Wiesen, editor. Updated October 2026. Editorial standards | How this site is funded

As of October 13, 2026, no bill that would put merchant cash advances under New York’s usury caps has passed both houses of the Legislature. On February 19, 2026, the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed that the Richmond Capital agreements were loans subject to usury law but sent the $77,289,631 money judgment back for recalculation. On May 13, 2026, the Senate passed S2305, which would bar confessions of judgment on debts under $5 million, for the second time. On June 8, 2026, the Attorney General sued Rapid Ruling, an arbitration platform used by merchant cash advance companies.

This page tracks where New York law on merchant cash advances and commercial financing stands: bills, statutes in force, enforcement and the court decisions that set the test. It is general information, not legal advice. For the background on how the usury question works, see our guide to merchant cash advance usury law in New York.

Bills in Albany, 2025-2026 session

Every status below comes from the bill pages on nysenate.gov. As of October 13, 2026, none of these bills has passed both houses.

Two bills in the table run in opposite directions. S10127 and S1726 would treat many merchant cash advances as loans with a rate cap, while A4810, the only one that has cleared the Assembly, would narrow a provider’s exposure under the existing disclosure law. I’d watch S2305 and S3695: each has passed the Senate in both years of the session, and both are waiting on the Assembly.

Laws already in force

The last row matters most to a business owner. A business organized as a corporation is limited to the criminal usury defense, so the 25% cap is the number that decides those cases. Our pages on the disclosure law and on confessions of judgment go through each one in detail.

Enforcement

New York Attorney General

• People v. Richmond Capital Group, Index No. 451368/2020, Supreme Court, New York County. Justice Andrew Borrok granted the State’s petition on September 15, 2023, and judgment for $77,289,631 plus interest was entered April 11, 2024. On February 19, 2026, the First Department (246 AD3d 585) held the agreements were “properly characterized as loans subject to restrictions on usury,” upheld liability for Robert Giardina, Ram Capital Funding and Tzvi Reich, and vacated the money award. The court said relief must be restitution that excludes repayment of principal and accounts for offsets, so the trial court has to recalculate.
• People v. Yellowstone Capital, Index No. 450750/2024, filed March 2024. The settlement with Yellowstone and 25 affiliates was entered January 16, 2025; the Attorney General’s announcement lists a $1.065 billion judgment and $534,552,724 in canceled merchant debt. Payments to claimants went out April 3, 2026. On March 4, 2026, the court denied the remaining defendants’ motion to dismiss, and the case continues against Delta Bridge (Cloudfund) and several individuals. Our Yellowstone settlement lookup covers who qualified.
• Rapid Ruling. On June 8, 2026, the Attorney General sued the online arbitration platform and its founders, alleging it worked with merchant cash advance companies while presenting itself as neutral. The office says it handled about 3,000 arbitrations in its first three years, with no small business appearing in 97% of them. The State seeks to shut down the business, plus penalties and restitution. The release gives no index number.

Department of Financial Services

We found no DFS press release announcing enforcement under the Commercial Finance Disclosure Law on the department’s press release page, which listed releases from August 13 to October 9, 2026 when we checked. We’ll add any action we can confirm.

Federal Trade Commission

• FTC v. RCG Advances (Richmond Capital), S.D.N.Y. No. 1:20-cv-04432, filed June 10, 2020. Stipulated orders banned Ram Capital Funding and Reich (January 5, 2022) and RCG Advances and Giardina (June 6, 2022) from the industry, the latter with more than $2.7 million returned. A final judgment on February 14, 2024 ordered Jonathan Braun to pay $20.3 million.
• FTC v. Yellowstone Capital, S.D.N.Y., announced August 2020. The defendants agreed in April 2021 to surrender $9,837,000 for refunds and accept bans on misstating fees and withdrawing money without consent.

Court rulings that set the test

New York courts ask whether repayment is absolute. A funder that takes no real risk of non-payment has made a loan, and a loan over 25% to a corporation can be void.

• LG Funding v. United Senior Properties of Olathe, 181 AD3d 664 (2d Dept, March 11, 2020): set out three factors (a reconciliation provision, a finite term, and recourse if the merchant goes bankrupt) and found a triable issue on whether the deal was a loan; criminal usury is a defense, not a counterclaim.
• Adar Bays v. GeneSYS ID, 37 NY3d 320 (Court of Appeals, October 14, 2021): a criminally usurious loan to a corporation is void, principal and interest included.
• Principis Capital v. I Do, 201 AD3d 752 (2d Dept, January 12, 2022): payments that changed with the merchant’s sales meant no finite term and no absolute repayment, so the deal was not a loan and the funder won summary judgment.
• Samson MCA v. Joseph A. Russo M.D. P.C., 219 AD3d 1126 (4th Dept, August 11, 2023): applying the LG Funding factors, the agreements were revenue purchases and enforceable against the guarantor.
• Crystal Springs Capital v. Big Thicket Coin, 220 AD3d 745 (2d Dept, October 11, 2023): fixed $4,000 daily debits with no duty to adjust made the deal a criminally usurious loan; the judgment was vacated and the complaint dismissed.
• Kapitus Servicing v. Ragtime Gourmet Corp., 242 AD3d 638 (1st Dept, October 28, 2025): whether the agreement was a usurious loan or a sale of receivables was a fact question, so the funder’s summary judgment motion was properly denied.

Read together, the cases turn on the contract terms and on what the funder did in practice. Richmond Capital adds that a reconciliation clause the funder never honored does not protect it.

What changed recently

• April 3, 2026: Yellowstone settlement payments mailed to qualifying claimants.
• April 28, 2026: Senate Banks Committee voted 6-1 for S4604, the APR safe harbor bill.
• April 30, 2026: S10127 introduced and referred to Senate Judiciary; its Assembly twin, A11302, was referred May 11.
• May 7, 2026: Senate passed S3695, 43-18.
• May 13, 2026: Senate passed S2305, 40-20.
• June 5, 2026: S4604 committed to Rules without a floor vote.
• June 8, 2026: Attorney General sued Rapid Ruling.

We found no confirmed event after June 8 to add. If a funder has already sued you or frozen your account, our page on merchant cash advance lawsuits and frozen bank accounts covers the steps that apply now, under current law.

How we keep this page

We check every bill page, the Attorney General’s and DFS press pages, and the appellate reporter once a month, and update the dates above. Last checked October 13, 2026. If you see an error or a ruling we missed, send it through our contact page with a link to the source.