Amanda Blankenship, Author at The Free Financial Advisor

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media. With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Chinese National Gets 15 Years in $92 Million Drug Money Laundering Scheme

August 19, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

$92 million money laundering scheme — A federal judge in the Western District of North Carolina sentenced Jianfei Lu to 15 years in prison for his role in a money laundering organization that prosecutors say processed more than $92 million in illicit funds. J. Michael Jones/Shutterstock

A Chinese national has been sentenced to 15 years in federal prison and ordered to forfeit $25 million for his role in a Chinese money laundering organization (CMLO) that processed more than $92 million in illicit funds, including proceeds from illegal drug importation and distribution in the United States, according to an official announcement from the U.S. Department of Justice.

Lu Was Sentenced to 15 Years in Federal Prison

Jianfei Lu, 31, of China, was sentenced in the Western District of North Carolina by U.S. District Judge Susan C. Rodriguez. In July 2025, Lu pleaded guilty to one count of money laundering conspiracy, two counts of money laundering to conceal illicit proceeds, and two counts of monetary transactions involving criminally derived property exceeding $10,000. As part of his guilty plea, Lu admitted to knowingly laundering between $25 million and $65 million in illicit funds and acknowledged that the money included drug trafficking proceeds.

According to court documents, Lu served both as a courier and a manager within the CMLO. As a courier, he personally collected drug trafficking proceeds from U.S.-based drug traffickers and deposited more than $20 million in bulk cash into shell company bank accounts using real and fake identities. As a manager, Lu coordinated directly with drug traffickers, dispatched other couriers to conduct bulk cash pickups and deposits, and procured fraudulent driver’s licenses used by couriers to deposit funds at major U.S. banks.

The Organization Laundered More Than $92 Million

The more than $92 million figure represents funds laundered by the broader organization, not money attributed solely to Lu. As part of his guilty plea, Lu admitted personally being responsible for laundering between $25 million and $65 million in illicit funds. Drug proceeds flowed primarily through networks connected to Mexico, according to the announcement.

The case was investigated by the DEA Charlotte District Office and the IRS Criminal Investigation Charlotte Field Office as part of the Homeland Security Task Force (HSTF), an interagency initiative established under Executive Order 14159. The HSTF is described by DOJ as a whole-of-government effort to investigate and prosecute criminal cartels, transnational criminal organizations, and related activity operating in the United States and abroad.

Prosecution was handled by trial attorneys from the Justice Department’s Criminal Division Money Laundering, Narcotics and Forfeiture Section, along with Assistant U.S. Attorneys from the Western District of North Carolina.

Why the Case Matters for the U.S. Financial System

This case is relevant to consumers and financial institutions because it involves the use of shell company bank accounts and fraudulent identification to move illicit cash through the U.S. banking system. Readers with questions about financial fraud or suspicious account activity should consult the relevant federal agencies, including the DEA, IRS-CI, or the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), for guidance specific to their situation.

What to Read Next

Treasury Proposes New Stablecoin Rules Under GENIUS Act — Here’s Who Could Be Affected

FTC Says Doxo Used Misleading Bill-Payment Ads and Hidden Fees — Company to Pay $2.1 Million

CMS Final Rule Ends Federal Medicaid and CHIP Funding for Certain Gender-Transition Care for Minors

Amanda Blankenship

Treasury Proposes New Stablecoin Rules Under GENIUS Act — Here’s Who Could Be Affected

August 19, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

GENIUS Act stablecoin rules — The U.S. Treasury has proposed regulations implementing GENIUS Act restrictions on who may issue payment stablecoins in the United States, with public comments due October 19, 2026. bluestork/Shutterstock

The U.S. Department of the Treasury has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking aimed at implementing Section 3 of the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act, which established a comprehensive federal framework for regulating payment stablecoins. The proposal was published in the Federal Register on August 18, 2026, and public comments are due by October 19, 2026.

Treasury Is Implementing the GENIUS Act

According to the official Treasury announcement, the GENIUS Act was enacted on July 18, 2025, and defines a payment stablecoin as a digital asset designed to be used as a means of payment or settlement, where the issuer is obligated to convert, redeem, or repurchase it for a fixed amount of monetary value and represents that it will maintain a stable value. National currencies, federally insured bank deposits, and securities under federal securities laws are explicitly excluded from that definition.

For consumers, stablecoins are digital assets designed to maintain a relatively stable value—often by being tied to the U.S. dollar—rather than fluctuating as dramatically as cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin. The proposed regulations focus on who is legally permitted to issue, offer, sell, or otherwise make available payment stablecoins in the United States. Under the GENIUS Act, it is unlawful for any person other than a “permitted payment stablecoin issuer” to issue a payment stablecoin in the U.S. Treasury’s proposal seeks to clarify and implement those statutory prohibitions and limitations.

A permitted payment stablecoin issuer, as defined in the Act, must be a U.S.-formed entity that qualifies as one of three types: a subsidiary of an insured depository institution approved under the Act, a federally qualified payment stablecoin issuer, or a state qualified payment stablecoin issuer. Entities or individuals that knowingly participate in a violation of the issuance prohibition face significant penalties under the Act, including fines of up to $1 million per violation, imprisonment of up to five years, or both.

Treasury also noted that the law is intended to have extraterritorial reach, applying to the offer or sale of payment stablecoins to any person located in the United States, regardless of where the issuer is based.

What the Proposed Stablecoin Rules Could Mean for Consumers

The proposed rules affect a broad range of market participants, including fintech companies, banks exploring digital asset products, and anyone involved in the creation or distribution of stablecoins that could be used for payments. The rulemaking is particularly relevant to consumers who hold or transact in stablecoins, as it would determine which issuers are operating legally under federal law.

Comments may be submitted electronically at regulations.gov or by mail to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of General Counsel, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20220. Readers with specific questions about how these proposed rules may apply to their situation should consult the Treasury’s official guidance or a qualified legal or financial professional.

What to Read Next

New York Attorney General Urges Congress to Tighten Cryptocurrency Oversight, Warns Proposed Federal Bill Would Weaken State Enforcement

7 Advisor Red Flags to Watch When Retirement Advice Involves AI or Crypto

Cryptocurrency Owners Are Getting IRS Letters — Even for Small Trades

Amanda Blankenship

FTC Says Doxo Used Misleading Bill-Payment Ads and Hidden Fees — Company to Pay $2.1 Million

August 18, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

Doxo FTC settlement — The FTC alleged that Doxo used misleading search ads that could make its third-party bill-payment service appear to be an official payment channel and failed to clearly disclose certain fees and subscription terms. DimaBerlin/Shutterstock

Online bill payment company Doxo will pay $2.1 million to settle Federal Trade Commission allegations that the firm and two of its co-founders deceived consumers through misleading search advertisements and undisclosed fees, according to an official FTC announcement.

FTC Says Doxo Ads Made Its Service Look Like an Official Payment Channel

The FTC’s 2024 complaint alleged that Doxo and co-founders Steve Shivers and Roger Parks used search ads and other advertisements to trick consumers into using Doxo’s third-party bill payment platform by disguising it as the official payment channel for utilities, car loans, and other bills. The company’s landing pages frequently displayed other companies’ names and sometimes their logos, according to the FTC. The agency alleged that Doxo did not have a relationship with the overwhelming majority of the companies it claimed were part of its payment network.

The FTC further alleged that Doxo added undisclosed “delivery fees” to consumers’ bills without clear disclosure. The company also allegedly enrolled consumers in a recurring subscription program deceptively — failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose that delivery fee waivers applied only to certain payment methods and failing to clearly disclose the subscription’s price.

A federal court found, at the FTC’s request, that Doxo violated the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act by failing to clearly disclose subscription terms and failing to obtain consumers’ consent for subscription charges.

$2.1 Million Will Be Used for Consumer Redress

Under the proposed settlement order, the $2.1 million Doxo pays will be used for consumer redress. Doxo, Shivers, and Parks will also be prohibited from certain conduct, according to the announcement, though the specific prohibitions were not fully detailed in the released text. The Commission approved the stipulated final order by a 2-0 vote. The FTC filed the proposed order in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Stipulated final orders carry the force of law once approved and signed by the District Court judge.

Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, stated that misleading search ads undermine the marketplace and that the action reflects the agency’s commitment to stopping deceptive search advertising so consumers can avoid hidden fees and make informed decisions.

Before paying a bill through a search result, consumers can check whether they are actually on the biller’s official website or using an authorized payment provider. Pay attention to the web address, review the total payment amount for added fees, and read any subscription language before submitting payment information. A search advertisement appearing above other results does not, by itself, mean the advertiser is the company you were searching for.

Consumers who believe they may have been affected by Doxo’s billing practices should verify their specific situation directly with the FTC at ReportFraud.ftc.gov or consumer.ftc.gov, as individual circumstances can vary.

What to Read Next

FTC Credit Repair Case Shows Why “Quick Fix” Credit Promises Can Cost Consumers Thousands

Celsius Network Founders Ordered to Pay $16.5 Million to Resolve FTC Charges

RentGrow to Pay $2.25 Million to Settle FTC Allegations of Fair Credit Reporting Act and FTC Act Violations

Amanda Blankenship

CMS Final Rule Ends Federal Medicaid and CHIP Funding for Certain Gender-Transition Care for Minors

August 17, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

Medicaid gender-transition care rule — The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has finalized a rule prohibiting federal Medicaid and CHIP funding for certain gender-transition procedures for minors, with the rule taking effect October 13, 2026. Tada Images/Shutterstock

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued a final rule prohibiting the use of federal Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) funds to pay for what the rule terms “sex-rejecting procedures” for minors, according to an official announcement published in the Federal Register on August 13, 2026.

What the New Medicaid and CHIP Rule Prohibits

Under the rule, state Medicaid plans must include provisions barring payment for such procedures for individuals under age 18, while separate state CHIP plans must bar payment for individuals under age 19. The age difference reflects the existing age boundaries of the two programs — Medicaid covers children under 18 in this context, while separate CHIP programs extend coverage to children under 19.

The rule takes effect on October 13, 2026, giving states approximately two months to update their Federally approved state plans to comply with the new requirements.

A limited transition provision is included for beneficiaries already receiving cross-sex hormone therapy at the time the rule takes effect. State Medicaid and CHIP agencies may continue to claim federal matching funds — known as Federal Financial Participation — for those hormone therapy medications for up to six months from the rule’s effective date. After that window closes, federal funding for such treatments would no longer be available under either program.

What the Rule Means for State Medicaid and CHIP Programs

The rule amends 42 CFR Parts 441 and 457, which govern Medicaid and CHIP benefits and state plan requirements. Because Medicaid and CHIP are jointly funded and administered by states and the federal government, states that do not update their plans to conform with the prohibition risk losing federal matching payments for the affected services.

Medicaid and CHIP together provide health coverage to millions of low-income children and families across the country. States set their own eligibility standards and benefits packages, but must operate within federal statutory and regulatory boundaries. Federal matching payments to states are calculated using the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage for Medicaid and an enhanced rate for separate CHIP programs.

Families Should Check How Their State Will Implement the Change

Families whose children currently receive affected care through Medicaid or CHIP should contact their state program to determine how the rule will be implemented and whether their coverage will change. The federal rule takes effect October 13, while a limited six-month transition applies to federal matching funds for certain hormone therapy already being provided when the rule takes effect.

What to Read Next

SEC Approves More Weekday Expirations for Options on Qualifying ETFs

CMS Issues Technical Correction to 2027 Affordable Care Act Benefit and Payment Parameters Rule

CISA Warns of High-Severity Path Traversal Vulnerability in Rockwell Automation ThinManager, Urges Immediate Patching

Amanda Blankenship

SEC Approves More Weekday Expirations for Options on Qualifying ETFs

August 17, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

ETF options expiration rules — The SEC has approved a Nasdaq ISE rule change allowing additional weekday expirations for short-term options on ETFs that meet specified eligibility requirements. William Potter/Shutterstock

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has approved a proposed rule change from Nasdaq ISE, LLC that expands the exchange’s Short Term Option Series Program by adding new expiration days for options on certain Exchange-Traded Fund Shares (ETFs), according to an official SEC announcement published in the Federal Register on August 17, 2026.

New Rule Expands Weekday ETF Options Expirations

Under the approved change, Nasdaq ISE may now list up to two Tuesday and Thursday expirations for options on ETFs that already meet the exchange’s existing “Qualifying Securities” criteria. Additionally, the rule change permits the listing of up to two Monday and Wednesday expirations for options on ETFs that satisfy a new, separate set of Qualifying Securities criteria. Previously, Monday and Wednesday short-term expirations were available only for options on certain individual stocks and ETFs meeting the existing eligibility standards.

To qualify under the existing criteria, an ETF must meet several benchmarks assessed on a quarterly basis: assets under management greater than $50 billion based on net asset value; monthly options volume exceeding 10 million options (measured by sides traded in the last month before quarter end); a position limit of at least 250,000 contracts; and participation in the Penny Interval Program. Individual stocks face a parallel market-capitalization threshold of greater than $700 billion. The exchange evaluates securities against these criteria each calendar quarter to determine eligibility for the following quarter, and publishes the list of qualifying securities by the close of business on the first trading day of each quarter.

The exchange does not list a short-term expiration on days when an earnings announcement is scheduled after market close. Securities that fall out of compliance with the Qualifying Securities criteria lose their eligibility for the new expiration listings beginning on the second day of the following quarter.

Nasdaq ISE filed the proposed rule change with the SEC on June 15, 2026, and it was published for public comment in the Federal Register on July 2, 2026. The SEC’s order approving the change is dated August 12, 2026.

What the Change Could Mean for Options Traders

The expansion affects options market participants — including retail investors, institutional traders, and financial advisors — who use short-dated ETF options for hedging, income strategies, or speculative purposes. Broader availability of mid-week expirations may increase flexibility for short-term options strategies tied to qualifying ETFs.

Readers with questions about how this rule change affects their specific accounts or strategies should consult the SEC’s official announcement or contact their broker-dealer or a qualified financial professional for guidance applicable to their situation.

What to Read Next

July CPI Numbers Retirees Can Use to Test Their 2026 Spending Plan

FTC Credit Repair Case Shows Why “Quick Fix” Credit Promises Can Cost Consumers Thousands

Government Imposter Scams: How to Verify an IRS, SSA, or Medicare Contact

Amanda Blankenship

FTC Credit Repair Case Shows Why “Quick Fix” Credit Promises Can Cost Consumers Thousands

August 11, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

credit repair scams — Credit repair companies may promise a fast way to improve a struggling credit score, but the FTC warns consumers to carefully investigate companies before paying for services. Prostock-studio/Shutterstock

The Federal Trade Commission’s case against a sprawling credit repair operation offers a costly reminder for consumers tempted by promises of a quick credit-score fix. The FTC accused Financial Education Services (FES), its owners, and related companies of taking more than $213 million from consumers through allegedly ineffective credit repair services and a pyramid scheme.

The case was originally filed in 2022, and the FTC later secured settlements that permanently banned several defendants from the credit repair industry. In March 2026, the agency announced another development: more than $10.9 million in refund checks were being sent to 443,048 affected consumers.

How the Credit Repair Operation Allegedly Worked

According to the FTC, Michigan-based Financial Education Services also operated under names including United Wealth Services and marketed its services to people struggling with low credit scores.

The agency alleged that consumers were promised the company could remove negative information from credit reports and rapidly increase their credit scores. Customers could be charged $99 upfront followed by recurring fees as high as $89 per month, according to the FTC’s original complaint.

The agency alleged that many of the company’s credit repair efforts amounted to sending form dispute letters to credit bureaus and that the techniques were rarely effective. The FTC also accused the operation of recruiting customers to become agents selling the same services to others through a pyramid-style compensation structure.

Upfront Credit Repair Fees Deserve Attention

The case highlights an important distinction for anyone considering paying for help with a damaged credit history.

Federal law gives consumers protections when dealing with credit repair organizations, and the FTC warns consumers to be skeptical of companies that demand payment before providing promised credit repair services. Consumers should also be cautious when a company guarantees that it can remove accurate negative information from a credit report.

Accurate and timely negative information generally cannot simply be erased because a consumer pays a company to challenge it.

You Can Dispute Credit Report Errors Yourself

Consumers don’t necessarily need to hire a company when their credit report contains information they believe is inaccurate.

The FTC advises people to review their credit reports and dispute errors with the appropriate credit bureau. Consumers can also contact the company that supplied the disputed information.

That distinction matters because legitimate disputes involving incorrect accounts, balances, payment histories, or identity theft are very different from promises that a company can make accurate negative information disappear.

Check the Company Before Paying for Credit Repair

Before handing over money, consumers should research the company, understand exactly what services are being promised, and be suspicious of guarantees about specific increases in a credit score.

Pressure to pay immediately, promises to remove accurate information, instructions to misrepresent information, or claims that consumers shouldn’t contact credit bureaus themselves should warrant additional scrutiny.

Consumers who believe they’ve encountered deceptive credit repair practices can report them to the Federal Trade Commission. The larger lesson from the FES case is straightforward: a low credit score can make an easy solution extremely appealing, but promises of a fast fix deserve careful investigation before any money changes hands.

What to Read Next

Celsius Network Founders Ordered to Pay $16.5 Million to Resolve FTC Charges

RentGrow to Pay $2.25 Million to Settle FTC Allegations of Fair Credit Reporting Act and FTC Act Violations

IRS Issues New Guidance on Expanded Paid Family and Medical Leave Tax Credit

Amanda Blankenship

IRS Issues New Guidance on Expanded Paid Family and Medical Leave Tax Credit

August 10, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

The Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service have issued official guidance on an expanded employer tax credit for paid family and medical leave (PFML), according to an announcement from the two agencies. The guidance, published as Notice 2026-28, addresses changes made under legislation called the Working Families Tax Cuts (WFTC).

Paid Family and Medical Leave Tax Credit Becomes Permanent

According to the official announcement, the Working Families Tax Cuts makes permanent the employer credit for paid family and medical leave and expands eligibility and coverage for employers who offer PFML benefits to their employees. Previously, the credit had been temporary in nature.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated in the announcement that the permanent expansion gives businesses — particularly small businesses — greater incentives to provide paid leave so workers can care for a newborn, other family member, or recover from a serious illness without sacrificing their financial security. IRS Chief Executive Officer Frank J. Bisignano noted that the changes encourage businesses to provide paid family and medical leave benefits.

The guidance in Notice 2026-28 is intended to provide employers with clarity on how to claim the enhanced credit under the new permanent rules. The announcement indicates the changes affect both the scope of employers who may be eligible and the coverage provisions related to the credit.

Employers Should Review the New IRS Guidance Before Claiming the Credit

The credit is relevant to employers across business sizes, with the announcement specifically highlighting potential benefits for small businesses. Workers who receive paid family and medical leave through qualifying employer programs may indirectly benefit if the credit encourages more employers to offer such leave.

Employers and tax professionals seeking to understand how the expanded credit applies to their specific situations should review Notice 2026-28 directly on the IRS website or consult with a qualified tax advisor, as the details of eligibility and compliance requirements may vary by circumstance. Readers are encouraged to verify their specific situation with the IRS or a tax professional, as this announcement provides general guidance and individual circumstances may differ.

What to Read Next

Retiring Soon? These Tax Withholding Choices Can Lead to an Unexpected IRS Bill

A Practical Guide to IRS Notice Mistakes That Can Turn a Small Tax Issue Into a Bigger Bill

IRS Whistleblower Program Has Recovered More Than $8 Billion and Paid Over $1.4 Billion in Awards Since 2007

Amanda Blankenship

New York Attorney General Warns of Gold Bar Scam That Has Cost Victims More Than $100 Million

August 10, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

New York Attorney General Letitia James issued a consumer alert on August 7, 2026, warning New Yorkers about an increasingly common fraud known as the “gold bar scam,” which disproportionately targets older adults.

How the Gold Bar Scam Starts With a Fake Computer Warning

According to the official announcement from the Office of the Attorney General, the scheme typically begins with a fake pop-up message on a victim’s computer falsely claiming that the device or the victim’s financial accounts have been compromised or linked to criminal activity. Scammers then persuade the victim to grant them remote access to their computer, after which they manufacture false evidence of hacking activity to make the threat appear real.

Victims are subsequently connected to someone posing as a law enforcement officer or government investigator, who instructs them to withdraw their savings and purchase gold bars or coins from legitimate dealers. The supposed authority figure claims the gold must be turned over to keep the money safe. Victims are also told to keep the matter secret and not discuss it with bank employees or family members. Scammers then send couriers to collect the gold, which is later laundered.

The New York City Police Department has investigated more than 100 gold bar scam cases over the past two years, with total losses exceeding $100 million, according to the attorney general’s announcement.

What Older Adults Should Do if Someone Tells Them to Move Money

Attorney General James offered the following protective tips in the alert: do not call any phone number provided in a pop-up, text, or email; never grant remote computer access to an unknown person; never move money out of a bank account at the urging of someone over the phone; and if someone claims there is a problem with your bank account, hang up and call the number printed on your bank statement to verify directly with the institution. The alert also emphasized that scammers deliberately create a false sense of urgency and swear victims to secrecy — and that the best response is to hang up and consult a trusted person.

New York City residents who believe they have been targeted are encouraged to contact their local NYPD precinct. Anyone who has been victimized by this or a similar scam can file an online complaint with the Office of the Attorney General or call 1-800-771-7755. Deaf or hard-of-hearing individuals can reach the office at 1-800-788-9898.

Readers should verify their specific situation directly with the New York Attorney General’s Office or their financial institution, as individual circumstances may vary.

What to Read Next

New York Attorney General Urges Congress to Tighten Cryptocurrency Oversight, Warns Proposed Federal Bill Would Weaken State Enforcement

New York AG Charges Long Island Man With Fraudulently Collecting Over $100,000 in Social Security Disability Benefits

New York Renters Say Their Budget Stretch Isn’t Coming From Rent Alone Anymore

Amanda Blankenship

Federal Reserve Approves Banco Santander Application Affecting U.S. Banking Operations

August 5, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

Federal Reserve Banco Santander approval — A Santander Bank branch in the United States. The Federal Reserve approved an application involving Banco Santander and Santander Holdings USA under the federal banking regulatory review process. Tada Images/Shutterstock

The Federal Reserve Board has announced its approval of an application filed by Banco Santander, S.A. and its U.S. intermediate holding company, Santander Holdings USA, Inc., according to an official announcement published on the Federal Reserve’s website.

The approval was issued through the Federal Reserve’s applications and structure change process, which governs mergers, acquisitions, and other corporate reorganizations involving bank holding companies and foreign banking organizations operating in the United States. Banco Santander, S.A. is a global banking institution, and Santander Holdings USA, Inc. serves as its primary holding company structure within the United States.

What the Approval Covers

The Federal Reserve reviews such applications under the Bank Holding Company Act and related regulations, evaluating factors that may include financial stability, managerial resources, and the convenience and needs of the communities to be served. The agency’s approval reflects its assessment that the application met the applicable statutory and regulatory standards.

What It Means for Customers and Investors

This type of regulatory action is relevant to consumers and financial professionals who follow banking structure changes, corporate governance in the financial sector, and the oversight role of federal regulators over large foreign banks with U.S. operations. Santander is among the larger foreign banking organizations active in the U.S. retail and commercial banking market.

The announcement was published as an official order on the Federal Reserve Board’s press release page. Details of the specific transaction structure, conditions attached to the approval, and any dissenting views, if applicable, would be contained in the full order document available through the Federal Reserve’s website.

Readers with questions about how this approval may affect their accounts, financial relationships, or business dealings with Santander entities are encouraged to consult the full order on the Federal Reserve’s official website at federalreserve.gov or contact the agency directly for specifics relevant to their situation.

What to Read Next

What to Know About Banking Habits That Can Complicate a Fraud Investigation

6 Estate-Tax Headlines That Can Mislead Families With Ordinary Estates

Retirement Account Rollover Rules: When a Signature Is Not Enough

Amanda Blankenship

Labor Department Amends Prohibited Transaction Exemption for AT&T Retirement Plans, Extending Coverage Through 2023

August 3, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) published a notice in the Federal Register on August 3, 2026, announcing an amendment to an existing prohibited transaction exemption involving AT&T Inc. and its affiliates, headquartered in Dallas, Texas.

Labor Department Updates AT&T Retirement Plan Exemption

The amendment modifies Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2014-06 (PTE 2014-06), which was originally granted in July 2014. According to the official announcement, the exemption amendment adds new sections to the original exemption and extends the period during which certain otherwise-prohibited transactions involving AT&T are permitted under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

What the Amendment Changes

Specifically, the Department of Labor stated that the original Sections I, II, and III of PTE 2014-06 remain in effect for the period from September 9, 2013, through October 14, 2018. The amendment adds new Sections IV, V, VI, and VII, which cover transactions from October 15, 2018, through April 5, 2023. These new sections address definitions, covered transactions, conditions under which the exemption applies, and exemption dates.

Prohibited transaction exemptions under ERISA are granted by the Department of Labor to allow transactions that would otherwise be barred because they involve parties with potential conflicts of interest — such as a plan and an employer or affiliate — when the agency determines the transactions are nonetheless protective of, or at least not harmful to, the affected retirement plan participants and beneficiaries.

The exemption was originally applied for under Application Number D-11981. The amendment was published as a five-page notice in volume 91 of the Federal Register at page 48942. The notice was issued by EBSA, the Labor Department division responsible for administering and enforcing the fiduciary, reporting, and disclosure provisions of ERISA, which governs private-sector employee benefit plans.

Where to Learn More

This action is relevant to retirement plan participants and beneficiaries in AT&T-affiliated plans, as well as financial advisors, plan administrators, and compliance professionals who monitor ERISA exemption activity. Individuals seeking to understand how this exemption may apply to their specific plan or situation should consult the official Federal Register notice or contact the Employee Benefits Security Administration directly, as this article does not constitute individualized legal or financial advice.

What to Read Next

What to Know About Payment-App Records to Save Before Disputing a Transfer

Why a Tax Refund Can Be Smaller Than Expected Without Being ‘Taken’

5 Beneficiary Form Errors That Can Override What a Will Says

Amanda Blankenship