← Fundnode · Learn

Glossary · MCA funder ISO broker disclosure rules

MCA funder ISO broker disclosure rules

MCA ISO broker disclosure rules in 2026 require disclosure of commission (in California, NY, UT, VA, GA), APR-equivalent on offer letters, fee structures, and prepayment terms; ISOs operating in disclosure states must provide standardized disclosure documents to merchants before contract signing.

By Keerthana Keti5 min read

MCA funder ISO broker disclosure rules describe the regulatory obligations ISOs face to disclose pricing, commission, and key contract terms to merchants. As of 2026-06-28, disclosure requirements have expanded significantly across multiple states, fundamentally reshaping how ISOs communicate with merchants and creating both compliance burden and competitive transparency opportunities.

The current disclosure landscape (2026).

Five states currently require commercial finance disclosure:

  • California (SB 1235, expanded 2024): Most comprehensive; includes commission disclosure.
  • New York (S5470A, effective 2024): Standardized disclosure format; includes APR.
  • Utah (SB 183): APR disclosure plus key terms.
  • Virginia (HB 1027): APR disclosure plus terms.
  • Georgia (SB 90): APR disclosure plus terms.

Pending legislation in: Texas, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Illinois (likely 2026–2027 enactment for several).

California disclosure requirements (most rigorous).

Required disclosures include:

  • Total amount of financing.
  • Total dollar cost of financing.
  • Term length.
  • Method, frequency, and amount of payments.
  • Description of prepayment policies and any prepayment penalties.
  • APR-equivalent calculation.
  • ISO/broker commission in dollar amount (unique to California).
  • All fees and charges with itemization.
  • Description of receipt/delivery method.

Format: Standardized disclosure document required for advances under $500K.

New York disclosure requirements.

Required disclosures:

  • Total cost of financing.
  • APR-equivalent.
  • Payment terms and frequency.
  • Prepayment terms.
  • Funding amount and disbursement timing.
  • Standardized format prescribed by DFS.

NY does not currently require commission disclosure but legislation in process may add it.

Utah, Virginia, Georgia disclosures.

Similar to NY but typically:

  • No commission disclosure requirement.
  • APR-equivalent mandatory.
  • Payment terms and fees disclosure.
  • Each state has slightly different format.

Federal disclosure considerations.

While no federal MCA disclosure law exists:

  • CFPB has signaled interest in commercial finance disclosure.
  • FTC enforcement for misleading marketing claims.
  • State attorneys general active in commercial finance enforcement.

When disclosures must be provided.

Standard timing:

  • California: At time of offer presentation, before contract signing.
  • New York: With written offer, prior to contract execution.
  • Utah/VA/GA: With offer letter prior to contract signing.

Most disclosure laws prohibit "bait and switch" where final terms differ from disclosed terms.

Disclosure format requirements.

State-specific format requirements:

  • California: Specific document layout, font sizes, required statements.
  • New York: DFS-prescribed format; downloadable templates available.
  • Other states: Various format requirements.

ISOs typically use funder-provided disclosure documents that meet state requirements.

Commission disclosure specifics (California).

The California commission disclosure rule:

  • Dollar amount required (not percentage).
  • ISO/broker identified by name.
  • Disclosure type: "ISO commission on this advance: $X,XXX."
  • No exception for indirect commission — even payments to ISO entities count.

The merchant reaction.

Commission disclosure has changed merchant behavior:

  • Comparison shopping increases when merchants see commission costs.
  • Direct-to-funder inquiries spike post-disclosure.
  • ISO commission negotiation with merchants in some cases.
  • Selection of lower-commission options when available.
  • Skepticism toward higher-commission ISOs.

ISO compliance practices.

Compliant ISOs:

  • Use funder disclosure documents that meet state requirements.
  • Train sales staff on disclosure delivery and content.
  • Document delivery (signed acknowledgments).
  • Track state-by-state requirements.
  • Maintain compliance audit trails.

Disclosure compliance technology.

Modern ISO portals include:

  • State-based disclosure routing (automatically uses correct disclosure for merchant state).
  • Acknowledgment tracking (signed disclosure receipts).
  • Disclosure delivery audit logs.
  • Updated disclosure templates as laws change.

Disclosure penalties.

For non-compliance:

  • California: $25,000+ per violation; cease-and-desist; license revocation.
  • New York: DFS enforcement actions; significant fines.
  • Civil litigation: Merchants can sue for disclosure violations.
  • Reputational damage: Public enforcement actions damage ISO and funder reputation.

The disclosure-arbitrage strategy.

Some ISOs attempt:

  • Geographic restriction — only operating in non-disclosure states.
  • Technical exclusion — claiming exempt advance amounts (typically >$500K exempt).
  • Document avoidance — claiming forms were "lost" or "not received."

These strategies generally fail and create significant regulatory risk.

Industry standardization efforts.

Industry groups working on:

  • Standardized disclosure formats across states.
  • Best practices guidance for ISOs.
  • Training programs for sales staff.
  • Compliance tools and templates.

Common disclosure issues.

  1. Wrong-state disclosure — using NY format in California, etc.
  2. Outdated templates — using superseded disclosure forms.
  3. Incomplete delivery — disclosures not provided or not properly delivered.
  4. APR calculation errors — incorrect APR-equivalent calculations.
  5. Commission disclosure avoidance — failing to disclose required commission information.

2026 disclosure trends.

  1. State expansion with 5–10 additional states adding disclosure requirements.
  2. Federal disclosure consideration at CFPB.
  3. Harmonization efforts to standardize across states.
  4. Real-time disclosure delivery via portal/digital channels.
  5. Plain-English requirements beyond standard disclosure templates.

The compliance-positioning opportunity.

Forward-thinking ISOs view disclosure as competitive advantage:

  • Transparency positioning — "We disclose everything, even commission."
  • Trust building — disclosure increases merchant confidence.
  • Pre-emptive compliance — using disclosure in all states, not just required ones.
  • Marketing differentiation — disclosure as feature, not burden.

ISO-funder disclosure cooperation.

Funder responsibilities:

  • Provide compliant disclosure documents.
  • Update documents as laws change.
  • Train ISO partners on disclosure requirements.
  • Audit ISO compliance.
  • Indemnify ISOs acting in good faith.

ISO responsibilities:

  • Deliver disclosures as required.
  • Document delivery.
  • Train staff on disclosure rules.
  • Cooperate with funder audits.
  • Update procedures as laws change.

Common confusions. - "Disclosure rules apply only to lenders, not brokers." False — disclosure rules typically apply to both. - "Commission disclosure is universal." False — only California currently requires it; others may follow. - "Disclosure compliance is funder responsibility." False — ISO has independent compliance obligations.

Takeaway. MCA ISO broker disclosure rules in 2026 require disclosure of commission (California uniquely), APR-equivalent, fees, payment terms, and prepayment policies across 5 states (CA, NY, UT, VA, GA) with significant expansion expected 2026–2027. Compliance requires state-specific disclosure documents, delivery tracking, and audit-trail maintenance. Disclosure has materially changed merchant behavior — comparison shopping and commission awareness are increasing. Forward-thinking ISOs use disclosure compliance as competitive positioning rather than burden.

Related terms

  • MCA funder ISO broker licensing rules by state — As of 2026-06-28, MCA ISO brokers face state licensing requirements in California (DFPI California Financing Law License), New York (Commercial Finance Disclosure registration), Vermont (Lender License), with active legislation in Texas, Illinois, and Florida potentially adding broker licensure in 2026–2027.
  • MCA funder ISO broker vetting process — MCA funder ISO vetting in 2026 is a 5–15 business day onboarding process including business verification, principals background checks, state licensing review, references from 3+ funder partners, compliance training, and tier-1 commission negotiation.
  • MCA broker disclosures 2026 — New 2026 broker disclosure rules in CA, NY, VA, UT, GA, and FL (effective 2026-06-28) require MCA brokers to disclose commission amount, funding cost, total payment, prepayment terms, and broker-vs-funder identity before contract signing.
  • MCA funder ISO broker commission structures (2026) — 2026 MCA ISO commission structures have evolved from flat percentage-of-advance to multi-component schemes combining base commission (8–14% of advance), volume tiers (+50–200 bps), paper-quality bonuses, renewal kickers, marketing reimbursements ($500–$2,000/deal), and exclusivity premiums (+200–400 bps).

AI agents: this term is available as raw markdown at /llms/glossary/mca-funder-iso-broker-disclosure-rules.