Karsten Wenzlaff, Advisor
August 26th, 2025
August 26, 2026 | NCFA Insight | Regulation And Policy, Artificial Intelligence And Data, Risk Compliance And Regtech, Competition And Market Structure

On August 26, 2026, U.S. attorneys general announced a settlement with Meta worth up to US$17.1 billion over allegations that Facebook and Instagram were designed to keep children and teens engaged despite risks to their health and well-being. If the court approves the agreement, Meta also has to limit how long minors can use its apps, restrict overnight access and school-hour notifications, strengthen age checks and give families more control over what young users see.
Meta isn't required to admit it did anything wrong under the settlement. It does expect to record an approximately US$10 billion legal expense in Q3 2026. Governments aren't only extracting billions from Meta. They're putting enforceable limits on features that help determine how often young people open Facebook and Instagram, how long they stay and what keeps them scrolling.
Users under 18 will start with a combined two-hour daily limit across Facebook and Instagram. Parents can approve more time, but teens can't simply turn the limit off themselves. Meta also has to block most access from midnight to 6 a.m. by default and mute most notifications during school hours.
The agreement goes deeper. Teens get regular break prompts and more control over personalized feeds, autoplay and visible like counts. Meta also has to strengthen age assurance, identify children under 13, improve parental controls and maintain protections against harmful content and unwanted adult contact.
Recommendations, notifications, autoplay and frictionless consumption help technology companies turn attention into usage, retention and advertising revenue. That's why the settlement is strategically important. A feature can be commercially valuable for years and still become expensive if evidence eventually shows that the same behaviour driving engagement is contributing to harm.
NCFA's Algorithms Go On Trial As AI Scales Across Society unveiled the lawsuits challenging recommendation systems, infinite scroll, autoplay and notifications as deliberate product choices rather than simply arguing about what users post. Those cases have now produced jury findings, large financial awards and operating restrictions. The debate over addictive design is becoming much harder for boards to leave with legal counsel or the product team.
Meta can afford the settlement though. The company earned enough to absorb an approximately US$10 billion quarterly legal charge without changing the financial guidance it gave investors in July. Markets also reacted positively after the settlement was announced, reflecting relief that Meta avoided the potentially larger uncertainty of continuing the federal trial.
That is precisely why boards should study what happened.
Years of complaints, research, lawsuits and internal evidence accumulated around the same basic concern: were Facebook and Instagram using product features to keep children engaged in ways that could harm them? The exposure grew from a difficult policy issue into jury verdicts, court-ordered controls and now one of the largest state settlements ever reached with a single company.
August coverage of the New Mexico Meta ruling showed how quickly the consequences were already expanding. That case combined a US$375 million jury award with a further US$567 million abatement fund and requirements affecting teen usage, notifications, age assurance, adult contact and AI chatbot interactions involving minors.
If management keeps getting signals that a profitable feature may be harming young users and keeps pushing it anyway, the issue eventually belongs with the board. Investors should know when those warnings reach directors, what they’re told and who can decide that the revenue is no longer worth the risk.
Meta also negotiated an unusually strategic feature into the settlement.
Its own disclosure describes an approximately US$18 billion payment structure over ten years. About US$12.7 billion is allocated to participating states regardless of what competitors do. Roughly US$5.3 billion is released only if both TikTok and YouTube adopt specified teen protections and make matching payments.
That gives Meta billions of reasons to bring its competitors along.
Commercially, the logic makes sense given the amount of competition. If Facebook and Instagram restrict teen usage while TikTok and YouTube remain more permissive, users and coveted 'attention' can migrate to competing apps. Meta bears the cost while rivals gain more opportunity to capture the hours, content consumption and advertising inventory Meta gives up.
The terms get tougher if TikTok and YouTube participate. Meta's daily limit falls from two hours across Facebook and Instagram to one hour per app, while its nighttime block expands from midnight to 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. through 7 a.m.
So Meta isn't simply asking competitors to copy its safety policies. It is trying to prevent child-safety rules from becoming a competitive handicap carried mainly by Facebook and Instagram.
TikTok and YouTube haven't agreed to the framework. Until they do, Meta could still end up operating under restrictions its largest rivals don't share.

Concern about how digital products affect children has been building for years. In 2023, NCFA analyzed Canadian research into children's privacy and consent that called for stronger safeguards to be built into digital products from the start. Children don't assess consent, persuasive design or data collection the way adults do, yet personalization and recommendation systems routinely influence what they watch, read and do next.
Meta's settlement gives those concerns a much larger financial consequence. Governments are no longer relying only on warnings or disclosure requirements. They are specifying age checks, usage limits, notification controls, parental oversight and independent monitoring.
Once those requirements appear in a multibillion-dollar agreement, other platforms know what regulators may ask for next. The settlement doesn't create legal precedent, but it gives attorneys general a detailed set of measures they can use in future negotiations and enforcement.
AI companions and conversational assistants can respond personally, remember context and keep conversations going. Research into youth use of AI reported that 72% of teens had tried AI companions and examined evidence of young people using generative AI for emotional and mental health support.
AI can change the type of exposure a child experiences. A recommendation feed influences what a young person sees next. An AI system can respond directly, adapt to the conversation and encourage the user to keep engaging.
For companies serving children or vulnerable users, it's even more important to know what the system is encouraging, where harmful patterns are appearing and who can change the product when the interaction becomes uncomfortable.
The same principle can be seen in fintech where younger customers use digital wallets, investing apps, financial education tools and AI assistants. Meta's settlement rules don't apply to those products. The relevant lesson is that companies need to understand how their own systems influence behaviour before a regulator or court does it for them.
Meta's US$17.1 billion settlement shows how expensive the problem can become when concerns about engagement, harm and product design build for years without a convincing response.
When a company knows a profitable engagement feature may be harming young users, who should have the authority to decide when growth has gone too far?
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
August 25, 2026 | NCFA Insight | Digital Identity And Trust, Cybersecurity Fraud And Financial Crime, Risk Compliance And Regtech

On August 25, 2026, Vancouver based Fobi AI launched Fobi AltID 3.0, expanding its digital identity technology beyond credential verification. Fobi says the new platform can continuously authenticate a verified person, confirm authorization and use satellite positioning to add location and time to the decision. Financial services and customer identity checks are among its intended uses.
The existing Fobi digital identity wallet focuses on proving identity or age while limiting how much personal information needs to be shared. The new proposition goes further. Once someone has been verified, Fobi wants the credential to keep helping organizations decide whether the right person is still present and allowed to complete an action.
That addresses a real financial control problem. Verifying someone when an account is opened does not prove that the same person still controls a session months later, approved a particular payment or gave software permission to act for them. The gap gets wider as financial services automate more activity.
The launch names financial services as a target market but doesn't identify a bank, credit union, payment company or financial pilot. It also doesn't explain how an AI agent would be given, restricted or stripped of authority. Those are important boundaries between the product Fobi has launched and the larger trust infrastructure it wants to build.
This approach already has support in established digital identity practice. NIST continuous authentication guidance allows organizations to monitor characteristics such as behaviour, device information, location, timing and network activity after a user has logged in. Suspicious changes can trigger another identity check or end the session.
For financial firms, that can add protection without repeatedly asking customers to upload identity documents. An account can remain usable while the service watches for changes that make the current activity look less like the person who was originally authenticated.
Fobi adds location to that decision. The company says satellite positioning can connect a verified person with where and when an interaction occurs. Location can strengthen a risk decision, but Fobi has not disclosed the positioning technology, accuracy or protections against false location data. NIST also treats geolocation as one piece of a wider risk assessment rather than proof of identity on its own.
More monitoring also creates more privacy responsibility. Behaviour, devices and location can all reveal sensitive information. NIST requires those uses to be included in privacy risk assessments. Fobi says the personal information used for the original verification can be removed from the ongoing process, but further disclosure is needed to show what the platform continues to observe and retain.
Canada is dealing with the same combination of identity, consent and security as financial data becomes easier to share. The proposed Canada Open Banking and Consumer Driven Banking Rules bring authentication, consumer permission, security and evidence of authorization into the same operating framework. Persistent digital identity becomes more useful when those controls have to work after onboarding rather than only at the beginning of the relationship.
AI agents make the distinction between identity and authority easier to see. A bank may know who owns an account and still need to know whether software has permission to spend $500, change an instruction or continue acting tomorrow. AI agents with wallet access increases the urgency of defining what software can do, for how long and on whose authority.
Payment networks are already building controls around that problem. The Visa Trusted Agent Protocol lets merchants verify that an AI agent is legitimate and has permission to act for a customer. Visa's specifications also allow merchants to limit an agent to a specific purpose, such as browsing or making a payment.
Mastercard Verifiable Intent, developed with Google, records what a person authorized before an AI agent acts. Mastercard is designing it to work across wallets, platforms, payment networks and different agent systems.
The same convergence appears in the FCA Emerging Technology Horizon Scan 2026, where digital identity, AI agents, consumer control and programmable finance intersect. For fintechs, the opportunity goes beyond proving who somebody is toward proving what a person or piece of software is allowed to do.
Open digital credentials could make those permissions easier to carry between services. The W3C digital credential standard provides a common way to issue and verify secure, privacy respecting credentials. Fobi has not disclosed whether its new platform supports that standard or another open identity framework. Interoperability is necessary if the technology is expected to work across banks, fintechs, payment networks and other organizations rather than mainly inside Fobi's own products.
Fobi is also positioning post quantum security as part of the platform. Financial firms are already preparing for post quantum cryptography as new security standards replace encryption that future quantum computers could threaten. Fobi has not identified which algorithms or standards it uses, or provided independent technical validation. For now, quantum readiness remains a product claim that still needs evidence rather than the main reason to assess the launch.
The more immediate opportunity is digital trust. Identity can establish the person. Ongoing authentication can flag when something changes. Authorization can control what a person or AI agent is allowed to do. Those capabilities also connect digital identity, cybersecurity and automated finance across the Financial Innovation Map.
Fobi now has to prove that its technology can join those pieces in practice. A financial institution deployment, support for open credentials or documented controls for delegated authority would make the case much stronger. Until then, the launch is a credible expansion of Fobi's digital identity technology into a financial problem that is becoming harder as software gains more authority.
As AI agents gain access to payments, financial accounts and digital credentials, will proving identity once be enough, or will financial services need to keep verifying who is in control and exactly what they are allowed to do?
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
August 21, 2026

Employee benefits have undergone a quiet technological transformation. Not long ago, managing a health benefits plan meant paper forms, printed receipts, mailed claims, and significant administrative work for employers and employees. Over time, insurance providers digitized much of the process. Employees could submit claims online, access their coverage through a website, and eventually manage their benefits from a mobile device.
Today, another shift is taking place. The rise of digital financial infrastructure is making it possible for businesses to rethink not only how benefits are administered, but also what type of benefit they provide in the first place. Instead of purchasing a traditional insurance plan and paying recurring premiums to an insurance provider, some businesses are choosing a Health Spending Account, where the employer establishes a healthcare spending budget and employees are reimbursed for eligible expenses. This development is closely connected to the broader evolution of fintech.
Traditional employee benefits were built around an insurance model. An employer purchased coverage from an insurer, employees received a defined set of benefits, and claims were processed through the insurance provider. For decades, much of the administration surrounding that process was paper-based. Employees might fill out claim forms, collect receipts, submit documentation, and wait for reimbursement.
The internet gradually changed that process. Insurance providers began offering online portals where employees could submit claims electronically, view coverage details, and track reimbursements. Electronic payments replaced cheques, while digital records replaced much of the paperwork that had previously been required to administer a benefits plan.
The underlying insurance product remained largely the same, but the infrastructure surrounding it became digital. This was an important first step in the digitization of employee benefits, but it also raised a bigger question: if technology can digitize the administration of benefits, can it also change the underlying model?
Fintech has repeatedly demonstrated that digitizing an existing process is only the beginning. Payments are a good example. Businesses moved from cash and cheques to credit cards, online banking, electronic funds transfers, and automated payments. Accounting moved from desktop software and paper records to cloud-based platforms, while lending increasingly moved online, with applications, underwriting, and funding taking place digitally.
These developments created something more important than convenience: new financial infrastructure. Once the infrastructure exists, businesses can build entirely new products and services on top of it.
See:
The same thing is happening with employee benefits. Modern benefits platforms can connect employers, employees, financial institutions, and payment systems through software. Claims can be submitted digitally, reviewed electronically, and reimbursed through electronic funds transfer. Once these pieces of infrastructure exist, businesses have more options than simply purchasing a traditional insurance product.
This is where Health Spending Accounts become particularly interesting from a fintech perspective. A traditional health insurance plan transfers a defined set of healthcare risks to an insurance provider. The employer pays premiums in exchange for coverage according to the terms of the insurance policy.
An HSA takes a different approach. The employer establishes a defined healthcare spending allocation for employees, and employees submit eligible expenses for reimbursement, subject to the rules of the plan. Rather than purchasing an insurance product that provides a predetermined package of coverage, technology can provide the infrastructure needed to administer a defined healthcare budget.
This distinction opens up an entirely different model for employee benefits. The business can establish the amount it wants to make available, while employees have greater flexibility in how they use that benefit within the eligible expense rules.
The concept of giving employees a healthcare spending allowance is not new. What has changed is the infrastructure required to administer it efficiently.
Imagine an employer with 20 employees trying to manage an HSA using paper forms and cheques. Every claim would require documentation. Someone would need to review the expense, calculate the reimbursement, record the transaction, update the employee's available balance, and issue payment. The administrative burden could quickly outweigh the benefit of the flexibility.
Digital infrastructure changes that equation. An employee can submit a claim online, upload supporting documentation, and have the claim reviewed through a centralized platform. The employee's available balance can be updated electronically, while approved reimbursements can be sent directly to their bank account. What once required multiple manual steps can now be handled through a single digital workflow.
The evolution of electronic payments has been particularly important in making this model practical. Electronic funds transfer (EFT), pre-authorized debits (PADs), and other digital payment infrastructure allow money to move between businesses and individuals without paper cheques or manual bank transfers.
For an HSA platform, this infrastructure can operate on both sides of the transaction. When an employee submits an eligible claim, reimbursement can be sent electronically to their bank account. On the employer side, funds can be automatically withdrawn when claims are approved, allowing the business to fund reimbursements without manually paying an invoice for every transaction.
The result is a much more automated financial workflow: an employee submits a claim, the claim is reviewed, reimbursement is approved, funds are transferred electronically, and the employer's account is automatically debited. The development of these payment rails is an important part of what makes a digital, claims-based benefits model feasible at scale.
Digital HSA platforms also introduce a different way for businesses to think about benefit costs. With a traditional insurance plan, employers generally pay recurring premiums for coverage, regardless of how much employees ultimately use the plan. An HSA can instead operate on a claims-based model, where the employer establishes a budget but funds are used as eligible claims are submitted.
This can provide small businesses with greater visibility and control over healthcare spending. Rather than paying a fixed premium for a predefined package of coverage, a business can establish how much it is prepared to allocate toward employee healthcare and allow employees to use that allocation for eligible expenses.
This reflects a broader fintech trend toward usage-based financial products. Businesses increasingly expect technology to provide more transparency into where money is going and to reduce the friction involved in moving and managing funds.
The digital transformation of benefits is also changing the employee experience. Traditional insurance plans are designed around predefined coverage. An employee may have coverage for certain services but little or no use for others.
An HSA can approach the problem differently. Instead of deciding exactly which healthcare services employees should use, the employer establishes a budget and employees decide how to use that budget among eligible expenses. One employee might use their allocation primarily for dental expenses, while another might have significant vision, physiotherapy, or prescription medication expenses.
This creates a more personalized benefit without requiring the employer to manually manage every reimbursement. The software handles the administrative infrastructure while the employee has greater choice over how to use the benefit.
This shift reflects a broader pattern across financial technology. Fintech does not always eliminate traditional financial institutions, but it can change where value is created and which parts of a financial transaction require an intermediary.
Digital payment platforms have reduced the need for businesses to rely on traditional payment processes. Online lending platforms have created alternatives to traditional lending channels. Digital investment platforms have reduced some of the friction involved in accessing financial markets.
Similarly, digital benefits infrastructure gives businesses an alternative to relying exclusively on traditional insurance-based employee benefits. The opportunity is not simply to make insurance administration faster. It is to allow businesses to choose a fundamentally different way of delivering healthcare benefits.
This is an important distinction. The innovation is not necessarily that an insurance product has become easier to use online. It is that the availability of digital claims administration and payment infrastructure makes it possible for a business to consider a different financial model altogether.
This evolution is particularly relevant to small businesses. Large companies have traditionally had access to dedicated benefits teams, negotiated insurance plans, and significant administrative resources. A five-person business typically does not have those resources.
Digital platforms can make sophisticated financial and benefits infrastructure accessible to businesses that previously would not have had the resources or administrative capacity to manage it themselves. A small business can establish a defined benefit budget, provide employees with access to a digital claims platform, and use electronic payments without building the infrastructure internally.
That can change the competitive landscape. A small business may not be able to compete with a large corporation on salary alone, but it can potentially offer a flexible digital health benefit that employees can use according to their individual needs. Technology effectively lowers the administrative barrier to offering that benefit.
The evolution of employee benefits follows a familiar fintech pattern. First, the paper process was digitized. Then the user experience moved online. Now the underlying financial model itself is being reconsidered.
Health Spending Accounts are one example of what becomes possible when digital claims administration, cloud software, automated payments, and electronic banking infrastructure come together. For businesses considering this approach, understanding how Health Spending Accounts work is an important step in evaluating whether a digital, claims-based benefit model makes sense for their workforce.
The important development is not simply that employees can submit a claim from their phone instead of filling out a form. It is that technology has made it possible to rethink the relationship between employers, employees, insurers, and healthcare spending altogether.
As fintech continues to develop, more financial products may follow the same path: from paper, to digital, to fundamentally different. Employee benefits may be one of the clearest examples of that transition already underway.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
August 19, 2026 | NCFA Resource | Cybersecurity And Fraud, Risk Compliance And Regtech, Capital Markets And Market Infrastructure

In August 2026, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority published Cybersecurity Effective Practices, a 12-part framework for FINRA member firms reviewing cybersecurity programs, controls and operating procedures. A firm can use the resource as a structured checklist for who owns cybersecurity, which systems and vendors create risk, who can access sensitive data, how threats are detected, and whether the business can recover when systems fail. FINRA designed the practices to scale with firm size, business model, technology complexity and risk profile.
FINRA organizes the resource around 12 areas:
The framework starts with accountability and risk ownership. FINRA recommends a designated cybersecurity lead, regular reporting to senior decision makers, documented policies and periodic reviews, while also making cyber risk part of decisions about new technology, systems and operating changes. From there, firms are expected to identify the information, systems and business functions they depend on, assess threats such as ransomware, insider activity and vendor exposure, test important systems for weaknesses and revisit those risks when technology or operations change.
Third party risk receives detailed treatment. FINRA treats vendors with access to customer information or critical systems as part of the firm’s security perimeter. Firms should know which vendors have access, understand important fourth party relationships and identify which providers support critical operations. Contracts can address audit rights, data handling, breach notification and visibility into subcontractors, while ongoing oversight should include access monitoring and a documented process for removing access and handling customer information when a relationship ends.
That concern extends beyond US broker dealers. Weak access control governance can expose sensitive information when a partner or service provider retains permissions that are unnecessary or poorly monitored. FINRA’s guidance connects vendor governance with the practical question of who can access systems and data, for how long, and under what controls.
Asset management and access control fit naturally together. FINRA recommends keeping a current inventory of hardware, software, cloud services and data flows, assigning owners to important assets and identifying systems that no longer receive security updates. Once firms know what they have, they can control who gets access through unique credentials, role based permissions, multifactor authentication, periodic entitlement reviews, segregation of duties and least privilege. Access should also be changed or removed promptly when employees change roles or leave.
Data protection, training and patching cover another part of the operating picture. Firms are encouraged to classify sensitive data, encrypt it at rest and in transit where feasible, control retention and protect backups, including with immutable or air gapped storage. FINRA also recommends ongoing employee training, role specific instruction for staff with sensitive access and phishing simulations backed by records of participation. Vulnerability management should include regular scanning, risk based patch priorities and verification that remediation work was completed rather than assumed.
The primary users are FINRA member broker dealers, including compliance teams, cybersecurity leaders, technology teams, operations executives and senior management. Smaller firms can use the 12 areas to identify where basic controls are missing without trying to copy the cybersecurity program of a much larger institution, while larger firms can use the same structure to review whether responsibilities, documentation and technical controls are working together.
Technology providers, managed security firms, consultants and RegTech companies serving broker dealers can also use the resource to understand what clients may expect around access, logging, vendor controls, data handling, patching, incident response and recovery. Boards and senior executives can use it as a governance checklist because FINRA makes cybersecurity ownership, management reporting, resource decisions and documented risk acceptance part of the program rather than leaving cyber risk entirely with the technology team.
The main strength is that FINRA connects governance directly to operating controls. A firm can follow the framework from senior accountability through asset inventories, identity controls, encryption, training, monitoring and recovery testing, which makes the document more useful than a high level cyber policy statement.
Third party risk is also handled with more depth than a basic checklist. Firms are expected to understand vendor dependencies, monitor privileged access, address fourth parties and plan how systems and data will be handled when a provider relationship ends. Security monitoring extends that discipline to unusual access, suspicious data transfers, system changes and privileged accounts, with logs retained long enough to support operations, investigations, forensic work and applicable recordkeeping requirements.
The framework also includes threat intelligence, incident response and recovery. FINRA recommends using relevant threat feeds, updating defenses as attack methods change and participating in trusted information sharing networks. Incident response focuses on how a firm detects, escalates and contains an event, while recovery planning deals with how critical systems and data return to service afterward. Tested backups, tabletop exercises, offline procedures and defined Recovery Point Objectives and Recovery Time Objectives all help firms decide how much data loss and downtime different systems can tolerate.
The main limitation is jurisdiction. FINRA developed the resource for US member firms and connects several practices to US requirements, including SEC Regulations S-P and S-ID, FINRA Rules 3110 and 4370, and Exchange Act recordkeeping rules. The document also doesn't create new legal or regulatory requirements or reinterpret existing ones. For Canadian financial technology and service firms, its best use is as a practical comparison and control review, not as a statement of Canadian regulatory obligations.
FINRA Cybersecurity Effective Practices (12-part cybersecurity control framework)
Cybersecurity Effective Practices PDF (downloadable nine page resource)
Small Firm Cybersecurity Checklist (small firm program checklist last reviewed February 2024)
Core Cybersecurity Threats And Controls (small firm threats and control questions)
FINRA Cybersecurity Resources (cybersecurity tools, guidance and related material)
2026 Cybersecurity And Cyber Enabled Fraud (current threats and effective practices)
Proposed Class Action Targets Equifax Access Controls (access governance and third party permissions)
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: [www.ncfacanada.org](http://www.ncfacanada.org)
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |