- The Mogo case brings to the fore the complex interplay between financial innovation, consumer protection, and regulatory oversight in emerging markets.
- The transdisciplinary nature of the Mogo case is evident in its intersection of law, economics, and finance.
- While regulatory oversight is crucial, empowering consumers with the knowledge to understand complex financial products is equally important.
The principle of “caveat emptor” (let the buyer beware) has long been superseded by more robust regulatory frameworks designed to safeguard consumer interests within the realm of consumer protection law.
As Howells et al. (2017) argue in their seminal work “Rethinking EU Consumer Law,” the modern approach to consumer protection is predicated on the understanding that information asymmetry and power imbalances between businesses and consumers necessitate active regulatory intervention.
This principle is exemplified in the recent case of Mogo Auto Limited in Kenya, where the Competition Authority of Kenya (CAK) imposed significant penalties for violations of the Competition Act CAP 504.
The Mogo case brings to the fore the complex interplay between financial innovation, consumer protection, and regulatory oversight in emerging markets.
As developing economies like Kenya embrace Financial Technology (FinTech) to increase financial inclusion, they must simultaneously grapple with the potential for exploitation that comes with novel financial products.
The case of Mogo, a subsidiary of the international FinTech company Eleving Group, illustrates the challenges regulators face in balancing the promotion of financial innovation with the imperative to protect consumers from predatory practices.
At the heart of the Mogo case lies the issue of misrepresentation and unconscionable conduct, particularly concerning the terms of loan agreements.
The company’s practice of disbursing loans in Kenyan Shillings (KES) while requiring repayment based on U.S. Dollar (USD) exchange rates exposes a critical area of concern in international finance law.
This practice, which the CAK found to be in violation of Sections 55(b)(i) and 56(1) and (3) of the Competition Act, raises questions about the ethical boundaries of currency arbitrage in consumer lending. As Armour (2016) note in their comprehensive work “Principles of Financial Regulation,” such practices can exacerbate information asymmetries and expose consumers to undue financial risk.
The CAK’s decision to impose a pecuniary penalty of KES 10,851,473.20 on Mogo reflects a growing trend among regulatory bodies worldwide to use financial deterrents as a means of enforcing consumer protection laws.
This approach aligns with the theoretical framework proposed by Becker (1968) in his seminal paper “Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach,” which posits that the optimal level of law enforcement should balance the costs of enforcement against the social benefits of deterrence.
In the context of financial regulation, this translates to setting penalties at a level that effectively discourages non-compliance while considering the broader economic impact of regulatory actions.
The transdisciplinary nature of the Mogo case is evident in its intersection of law, economics, and finance.
From a legal perspective, the case underscores the importance of clear and unambiguous contractual terms in consumer finance agreements. The discrepancy between the currency of loan disbursement and repayment highlights the need for greater scrutiny of cross-border financial transactions, particularly in markets with volatile exchange rates.
Economically, the case raises questions about the efficiency of financial markets and the potential for regulatory interventions to correct market failures arising from information asymmetries.
Furthermore, the Mogo case illuminates the challenges of regulating multinational financial entities operating in developing economies.
As globalisation continues to blur national boundaries in financial services, regulators must grapple with the extraterritorial implications of their decisions. The fact that Mogo is part of a larger international group operating across three continents adds a layer of complexity to the regulatory landscape.
This echoes the concerns raised by Brummer (2015) in “Soft Law and the Global Financial System,” where he argues for the need for greater international cooperation in financial regulation to address the challenges posed by globally integrated financial markets.
The CAK’s decision to order Mogo to refund excess charges to affected customers and to resolve pending complaints amicably reflects a restorative approach to consumer protection.
This aligns with the growing body of literature on restorative justice in commercial law, as explored by Braithwaite (2002) in “Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation.”
By mandating direct restitution to affected consumers, the CAK’s decision serves not only as a punitive measure but also as a means of redressing the specific harms caused by Mogo’s practices.
The requirement for Mogo and its employees to undergo consumer compliance training by August 2025 speaks to the preventive aspect of regulatory enforcement.
This approach recognizes that sustainable compliance often requires cultural change within organizations, a concept explored in depth by Parker and Nielsen (2009) in their work on regulatory compliance.
By mandating education and training, the CAK aims to address the root causes of non-compliance and foster a culture of consumer protection within the company.
The Mogo case also raises important questions about the role of financial literacy in consumer protection.
While regulatory oversight is crucial, empowering consumers with the knowledge to understand complex financial products is equally important.
As Lusardi and Mitchell (2014) argue in their comprehensive review of financial literacy research, there is a strong correlation between financial literacy and financial well-being.
The case underscores the need for concurrent efforts to enhance financial literacy alongside regulatory enforcement to create a more robust framework for consumer protection in financial services.
From a broader perspective, the Mogo case exemplifies the evolving nature of consumer protection in the digital age. As financial services become increasingly digitised and cross-border transactions become commonplace, regulators must adapt their approaches to keep pace with technological innovation.
This aligns with the concept of “RegTech” (regulatory technology) as explored by Arner (2017), who argue for the need to leverage technology to enhance regulatory effectiveness and efficiency.
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: Competition Law and the future of Climate Finance in Kenya
In conclusion, the Mogo Auto Limited case in Kenya serves as a microcosm of the broader challenges facing consumer protection in the era of global finance and digital innovation.
It underscores the need for a nuanced, multidisciplinary approach to financial regulation that balances the promotion of innovation with the imperative of consumer protection.
As financial markets continue to evolve, cases like this will undoubtedly shape the future of regulatory frameworks, influencing how governments, businesses, and consumers navigate the complex landscape of modern finance.
The writer is a lawyer and legal researcher
