Do you think that contributes to the risk of Big being considered to be offering financial services? That is, punters are signed up for a loan to spend on whatever, conditional on accepting a video and using part of the loan to pay for it.
Curious whether it has to be considered the 'principal purpose' of the activity to be an issue, or if its prominent inclusion and unlimited application of part of the loan funds is enough.
Presumably, the counter-argument would rest on it being structured so that punters have to accept the video or cannot draw on the loan and characterising the relationship with FC as 'at arm's length'.
I guess it will emerge in due course whether that is an aspect that regulators are even considering.
BIG Price at posting:
$2.22 Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
