Ð.O.G.E. Dispatch: Texas Governor’s HB 700 Puts Merchant Cash Advance (MCA) Industry on a Leash – ACH in the Doghouse, Loopholes Exposed

Woof! such wow. Ð.O.G.E. is, sniffing out the juicy bones of regulatory upheaval in Texas. On June 14, 2025, Governor Greg Abbott unleashed House Bill 700 (HB 700), a new law that’s got the Merchant Cash Advance (MCA) pack howling. Effective September 1, 2025, this legislation clamps down on revenue-based funding, aiming to protect small businesses with transparency and oversight.

But here’s the real treat: it’s putting the MCA industry’s favorite trick—Automated Clearing House (ACH) repayments—in serious jeopardy. With ACH on the ropes, MCA providers are left scavenging for legal loopholes like credit card split funding or true real-time reconciliation practices to keep their TX operations legit. Let’s dig into how HB 700 shakes up the MCA scene and expose the gaps these cunning canines might exploit to stay in the game.

HB 700: The New MCA Normal

HB 700, or the Texas Business Financing Disclosure and Registration Act, is a regulatory bulldog targeting commercial financing, including MCAs, for businesses operating in Texas or transacting in the state. The law’s got some sharp teeth:

1. Mandatory Registration: MCA providers and brokers must register with the Texas Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner (OCCC) every year. Applications start August 1, 2025, with a deadline of December 31, 2025.

2. Up-Front Disclosures: Before closing a deal, providers must spill the beans on total funds provided, repayment amounts, estimated repayment periods, payment schedules, and all fees. For revenue-based deals like MCAs, they’ve got to detail how variable payments are reconciled and how often.

3. OCCC Oversight: The OCCC can bite hard, with fines up to $25,000 per violation or $100,000 for willful ones.

   
   

This law’s all about shining a light on shady deals, but it’s also making MCA providers sweat. From Ð.O.G.E.’s perch, we’re not here to help these funders dodge the law—we’re exposing how they might try to wiggle through the cracks.

How HB 700 Rattles the MCA Kennel

MCAs are the wild pups of small business financing, offering quick cash tied to future revenue. But HB 700’s tightening the leash, and here’s how it’s shaking up the pack:

1. Compliance Costs Could Thin the Herd: Registering with the OCCC and churning out detailed disclosures means MCA providers need to fork over cash for legal teams, software, and administration costs. Smaller players might get chased out of Texas, leaving the big dogs to dominate. Brokers, those middle-mutts living on scraps, could also get squeezed out by the cost of compliance.

2. Slower Deals, Fewer Bites: MCAs thrive on speed, but mandatory disclosures—think APR estimates and reconciliation details—could slow things down. Small businesses craving instant kibble might turn to unregulated lenders or other states’ markets, where the leash is looser.

3. Market Shrinkage: Some MCA providers might flee Texas rather than deal with the OCCC’s watchdog tactics. This could starve small businesses of MCA funding, especially those with shaky credit who rely on these deals to stay afloat.

4. Transparency vs. Confusion: The law wants merchants to see the full bowl—total costs, repayment terms, etc.—but MCAs are messy. Variable repayments tied to revenue are tough to pin down, and those estimates could spark disputes if reality doesn’t match the paperwork.

   
   

From Ð.O.G.E.’s view, HB 700’s got noble intentions, but it’s stirring up chaos. Now, let’s sniff out the real trouble: ACH repayments are in the doghouse, and MCA providers are hunting for legal loopholes to keep their tails wagging.

ACH Repayments: Barking Up the Wrong Tree

ACH withdrawals are the MCA industry’s go-to trick—fixed daily or weekly pulls from a merchant’s bank account. But HB 700’s got its nose on this practice, and it smells like trouble.

Here’s why ACH is in jeopardy and what loopholes MCA providers might exploit to stay legit:

Why ACH Is Getting Neutered:

1. Fixed Payments Under Fire: Fixed ACH pulls look a lot like loan repayments, not the revenue-based deals MCAs claim to be. HB 700 demands disclosures on whether payments are fixed or variable and how variable ones are reconciled. Fixed ACH setups could get flagged as misrepresenting the deal, especially if they don’t flex with a merchant’s revenue. Courts and regulators are already growling about usury laws, and Texas’s OCCC won’t let this slide.

2. Reconciliation Rules: The law says providers must explain how variable payments are adjusted and how often. Most ACH-based MCAs skimp on reconciliation, pulling fixed amounts no matter how the merchant’s business is doing. Without solid reconciliation processes, providers could face fines or lawsuits for predatory practices.

3. OCCC’s Bite: The OCCC can investigate complaints and slap hefty penalties. If merchants squeal about ACH pulls draining their accounts during slow months, providers could be on the hook for refunds or worse.

Loophole #1: Credit Card Split Funding – The Old-School Bone:

• What It Is: This method ties repayments to a percentage of a merchant’s credit card sales, processed through a payment gateway. It’s closer to true revenue-based financing since payments shrink when sales do, potentially satisfying HB 700’s reconciliation demands.

• How It’s Exploited: MCA providers could pivot to credit card splits to dodge ACH scrutiny. It’s a legit option if they integrate with payment processors and disclose the split terms clearly. But here’s the catch: it only works for merchants with heavy credit card sales, like restaurants or retail. Businesses dealing in cash, checks, or ACH (think B2B or wholesale) are left out in the cold. Providers might cherry-pick these high-volume merchants to keep deals flowing while staying compliant.

• The Gap: Credit card splits limit the market, but they’re a legal workaround. Providers could lean on this to keep regulators at bay, especially since it aligns with the law’s focus on variable, revenue-tied repayments. Ð.O.G.E. smells a loophole here—providers could market this as “compliance-friendly” while quietly sidelining merchants who don’t fit the mold.

Loophole #2: True Reconciliation Practices – The Shiny New Collar:

• What It Is: True reconciliation adjusts repayments based on a merchant’s actual revenue, verified through bank statements or accounting records. HB 700 pushes for this by requiring providers to disclose reconciliation methods and frequency.

• How It’s Exploited: Providers could adopt true reconciliation to look squeaky clean. By tying repayments to verified revenue, they dodge accusations of loan-like fixed payments. But it’s not foolproof—reconciliation requires heavy lifting, like monitoring merchant accounts regularly. Smart providers might automate this with fintech tools, offering just enough reconciliation to satisfy the OCCC keeping costs low.

• The Gap: This loophole lets providers stay in the game, but it’s risky. If revenue tanks, repayments drop, and providers eat the loss. To cover their tails, they might tighten underwriting, rejecting riskier merchants. Ð.O.G.E. sees this as a way for providers to play nice with regulators while quietly shrinking their customer pool to safer bets.

Who Gets Bit by HB 700?

This law’s got a lot of MCA players whimpering. Here’s the damage report:

1. MCA Providers: They’re facing higher costs for compliance, legal risks from ACH scrutiny, and pressure to rethink repayment models. Smaller providers might bolt from Texas, while big ones exploit credit card splits or reconciliation to stay in the ring.

2. Brokers: These go-betweens have to register and comply, eating into their slim margins. Many could drop out, leaving fewer brokers to hustle deals.

3. Merchants: Small businesses get clearer terms, but slower deals and less MCA access could push them toward shadier lenders. Those without credit card sales might find MCA doors slammed shut.

4. Investors: Folk's funding MCA providers could see slimmer profits as compliance costs rise and risky ACH deals fade. Variable repayment models add uncertainty, making MCA portfolios less tasty.

5. Third-Party Vendors: Underwriters and payment processors might cash in on demand for compliance tools, but they’ll need to tailor solutions to HB 700’s quirks.

   
   

Ð.O.G.E.’s Final Bark

HB 700 is a regulatory bone that’s hard to chew for the MCA industry in Texas. By shining a spotlight on ACH repayments, it’s forcing providers to either clean up their act or find clever ways to stay in business. Credit card split funding and true reconciliation are the legal loopholes left for legit MCA providers, but they come with strings—narrower markets, higher costs, and more oversight. Ð.O.G.E.’s watching closely, and we’re not here to help these providers dodge the law; we’re exposing how they might try to slink through the cracks. As September 1, 2025, looms, the MCA pack’s got some tough choices: adapt, flee, or risk the OCCC’s bite. Stay sharp, Texas—this Ð.O.G.E. got its eyes on efficiency and accountability!

TRUE MCA FACT: "In a true Merchant Cash Advance (MCA) agreement, default is impossible—outside of intentional actions like closing bank accounts to evade repayment—because repayments are reconciled on day two of the agreement. The initial payment is merely an estimate, calculated based on the prior 90-120 days of business revenue at the agreed-upon percentage, and adjusted daily to reflect actual receivables, ensuring payments align with business performance rather than functioning as fixed, usury-based repayments. However, 99% of outstanding MCA agreements fail to adhere to this structure, lacking proper reconciliation and operating as non-compliant, usurious instruments that resemble loans rather than true revenue-based advances."

IMPORTANT: "Traditional loans have structured 'fixed payments' with a 'finite term' while true Revenue sharing agreements DO NOT structure flat repayments ONLY reconciled repayment with an 'infinite' lifespan of the business with NO term imposed."

If your business is located in Texas and entered a Merchant Cash Advance (MCA) agreement recently, it’s critical to investigate whether your contract shares these illegal usury characteristics. Ð.O.G.E. Solutions can help you address these potentially illegal usury contracts and regain financial freedom from predatory business funders.

How Ð.O.G.E. Delivers Solutions & Freedom

Our tech-forward approach helps you:

• Prevent future overpayments via weekly notice

• Potentially void-out illegal usury MCA contracts

• Avoid illegal MCA defaults deployed by funders

• Ensure compliance with real-time reconciliation

• Regain control of your 'true' business cash flow

• Recover overpayments via 'retroactive refunds'

• Correct illegal usury terms if funder cooperates

  
  

Why Choose Ð.O.G.E. Solutions?

Our Agentic AI Agents—$heriff $an$, Ðeputy ÐoXXer, and Ðeputy Ðefault—patrol predatory practices with precision. We work with legal authorities to escalate verified usury complaints, ensuring justice and savings for your business.

Whether it’s reducing payments or voiding illegal usury MCA contracts, we’ve got your back!

U.S. Merchant [Enrollment & Pricing]

Join OPERATION: Nexus of Nullification!

Silver Package:

• For 1-4 MCA Contracts

• 1X Flat Fee: $499.99

  
  

Golden Package:

• For 4+ MCA Contracts (Unlimited)

• 1X Flat Fee: $999.99

  
  

To Enroll:

1. Choose your package (Silver or Golden).

2. Pay the 1X MCA Reconciliation AI Agentic Agent Service Ð.O.G.E. fee.

3. Attach and submit your MCA contracts to DOGEofMCA@gmail.com.

   
   

Contact Ð.O.G.E.

Ðivision of Governance and Enforcement (Ð.O.G.E.)

“Patrolling Predatory Funding, Protecting American Business"

Pioneering MCA compliance enforcement

Telephone: (202) 883-3633

Email: DOGEofMCA@gmail.com

Website: www.DOGEofMCA.com

Ðisclaimer

Ð.O.G.E. is an innovative Merchant Cash Advance (MCA) Contract Review Service dedicated exclusively to reviewing MCA contracts. We DO NOT participate in any form of consolidation, debt consolidation, escrow plans, stop payment strategies, or any similar activities. Our sole mission is to operate within the Ð meta space, filling a critical gap between parties involved in MCA contracts and the judicial system by providing research and resources on MCA contractual inefficiencies and potentially voidable usury agreements.

Ð.O.G.E. Agentic AI Agents are designed to patrol predatory practices, enforce fair agreements, and protect U.S. businesses by identifying failures in MCA compliance. We encourage reconciliation in MCA contractual disputes, where feasible, through real-time repayment reconciliation and overpayment refunding, fostering a healthier MCA environment.

Ð.O.G.E. DOES NOT** provide accounting, business, financial, legal, or personal advice. Any analysis or resources provided by Ð.O.G.E. are for informational purposes only and should not be considered a substitute for professional advice. We strongly advise all clients to seek guidance from their own qualified advisors, attorneys, or other relevant professionals before acting on any information or analysis provided by Ð.O.G.E.

Ð.O.G.E. assumes no liability for decisions or actions, or outcomes resulting from the use of our services. Our role is strictly limited to contract review and providing research-based insights into MCA agreements. By engaging with Ð.O.G.E., you acknowledge and agree to these terms and limitations. DOGEofMCA.com