On July 15, Buy Now, Pay Later stopped being the one major consumer credit product in the UK that regulators couldn’t really touch. New Financial Conduct Authority rules took effect that day, bringing what the FCA formally calls Deferred Payment Credit — the interest-free, pay-in-installments products offered by Klarna, Clearpay, and a long tail of smaller competitors — fully under the same regulatory umbrella as traditional consumer credit.
The mechanics of what changed are specific and, for an industry that has spent a decade operating in a genuine legal gray zone, fairly significant. Any lender offering a DPC agreement now needs FCA authorization or status under a temporary permissions regime that closed for new registrations on July 1, giving firms who registered in time six months from July 15 to secure full authorization or stop lending. Lenders must run “proportionate” affordability checks before extending credit — a real, binding requirement, not a suggestion, and one the FCA itself has said will mean some applicants who previously sailed through checkout financing will now be declined. Firms must give borrowers clear information about payment dates, amounts, and the consequences of missing one, and must offer support and signposting to free debt advice for anyone who falls behind. And for the first time, BNPL complaints can go to the Financial Ombudsman Service, which is bracing for roughly 2,000 of them in the current financial year alone.
FCA deputy chief executive Sarah Pritchard framed the change as protective rather than punitive: the regulator, she said, wants the BNPL sector “to thrive” because it provides “an important source of credit to many” — the point of the new rules is to make sure that credit is extended responsibly, not to shut the product down. Tellingly, both Klarna and Clearpay — the two firms with the most to lose from a heavier compliance burden — publicly welcomed the rules rather than fighting them.
That reaction makes more sense once you look at how BNPL got this unregulated in the first place. Short-term, interest-free credit repaid in a small number of installments was carved out of the UK’s 1974 Consumer Credit Act, a decision made decades before anyone had built a one-click checkout-financing product on top of that exemption. Klarna, Clearpay, and their peers scaled an entire industry, worth billions in transaction volume, inside a loophole regulators had flagged as a problem as far back as the 2021 Woolard Review into unsecured credit. What followed was nearly five years of consultation, delay, and industry lobbying before a rule actually took effect — a timeline that says as much about how slowly financial regulation moves as it does about BNPL itself.
The affordability-check requirement is the part worth watching most closely, because it cuts in two directions at once. It should genuinely reduce the number of financially stretched borrowers who stack multiple BNPL agreements across different providers with no single lender able to see the full picture — a real, well-documented harm the old exemption allowed to flourish. But it also formalizes BNPL as mainstream, ombudsman-backed consumer credit, which is likely to deepen usage among the borrowers who do get approved, not shrink the market overall. And the compliance cost of building affordability-check infrastructure, authorization processes, and ombudsman-complaint handling is a real moat for whoever can absorb it — which is presumably why Klarna and Clearpay, both of which can spread that cost across enormous transaction volumes, sounded relieved rather than resistant. Smaller BNPL challengers without that scale face a genuinely harder version of the same rules.
What This Means for Philippine Founders
The Philippines has its own fast-growing BNPL market — TendoPay, Cashalo, BillEase, UnaPay, and Shopee’s SPayLater have all built real scale on the same underlying logic that drove UK adoption: low credit-card penetration, high smartphone e-commerce use, and consumer appetite for installment financing on everyday purchases. That market currently sits under a patchwork of oversight rather than a dedicated BNPL rulebook — lending and financing companies answer to the SEC’s registration and disclosure requirements, and the BSP has said its priorities for the sector are transparency, risk management, and financial literacy, but there is no Philippine equivalent yet of the FCA’s specific DPC framework with its binding affordability-check mandate and ombudsman access.
That gap won’t necessarily stay a gap. Regulators worldwide tend to watch each other, and a fully implemented, multi-year FCA rulebook targeting the exact same product category is precisely the kind of reference model the BSP and SEC are likely to study if — or when — they decide BNPL needs its own dedicated framework rather than general lending-company rules stretched to fit. Philippine BNPL operators that build real affordability-assessment capability and structured hardship support for struggling borrowers now, well ahead of any local mandate, buy themselves two things at once: genuine protection against a regulatory shift that increasingly looks like a matter of when rather than if, and a credibility argument to make with partner merchants and investors who are increasingly asking how these products handle the borrowers who can’t actually afford them.
Share this article