The Bank Policy Institute (BPI), a lobbying group representing about 40 major U.S. banks—including heavyweights like JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo—is reportedly considering a lawsuit against the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) over its approvals of national trust bank charters for crypto and fintech firms.

This stems from recent OCC decisions starting around December 2025 and continuing into 2026 to grant conditional or full national trust charters to companies such as: Ripple, Circle, BitGo, Paxos, Fidelity Digital Assets, Crypto.com and others like Bridge.

These charters allow firms to operate as limited-purpose national trust banks across all 50 states, enabling activities like digital asset custody, staking, trade settlement, and potentially stablecoin issuance—without taking deposits or making loans in the traditional sense. The OCC, under Comptroller Jonathan Gould has reinterpreted federal licensing rules to facilitate this, aligning with a more pro-crypto stance.

BPI’s ConcernsThe BPI and allied groups including state regulators via the Conference of State Bank Supervisors and smaller banks via the Independent Community Bankers of America argue that these approvals: Ignore prior warnings about risks. Allow non-traditional firms into the banking system with lighter oversight and fewer controls than full-service banks.

Pose threats to consumers, financial stability, and the integrity of the national banking charter by creating a “two-tier” system. In October 2025, the BPI specifically urged the OCC to reject applications from Circle, Ripple, and payments firm Wise. Despite this, approvals proceeded, prompting the current evaluation of legal options.

The BPI has not yet decided to file a lawsuit—it’s weighing options and consulting legal counsel. No formal complaint has been lodged as of mid-March 2026. This reflects ongoing tension between traditional banking incumbents and the crypto sector’s push for greater integration into the regulated financial system.

Crypto advocates often frame opposition as protectionism against competition, while banks emphasize systemic and consumer risks. If pursued, such a lawsuit could challenge the OCC’s authority, potentially delaying or overturning recent charters and influencing broader crypto regulation under the current administration.

The Bank Policy Institute (BPI) considering a lawsuit against the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) over its approvals of national trust bank charters for crypto and fintech firms represents a major flashpoint in U.S. financial regulation as of March 12, 2026. No lawsuit has been filed yet—the BPI is still evaluating legal options—but the threat alone carries significant implications across multiple dimensions.

For Crypto and Fintech Firms

A successful challenge could: Invalidate or delay existing charters — Conditional approvals for companies like Ripple, Circle, BitGo, Paxos, Fidelity Digital Assets, and Crypto.com and pending ones like World Liberty Financial might be overturned or remanded, forcing these firms back to state-level licensing or slower processes.

This would limit their ability to operate nationwide with federal preemption of certain state laws, access to Federal Reserve payments systems, and the credibility of a national charter. Crypto firms view these charters as a path to mainstream legitimacy for activities like digital asset custody, stablecoin reserve management, staking, and settlement.

Disruption could hinder growth in these areas, increase compliance costs, and delay competition with traditional banks in custody and payments. Crypto advocates often see opposition as incumbents protecting market share, but a win for BPI could reinforce perceptions of regulatory barriers to innovation.

For Traditional Banks

Preserves the status quo — BPI argues these charters create a “two-tier” system where crypto/fintech firms offer bank-like services with lighter oversight, fewer capital requirements, and reduced consumer protections. A lawsuit win would protect incumbents from what they call unfair competition and “regulatory arbitrage.”

Banks warn that expanding trust charters beyond traditional fiduciary activities blurs the line of what constitutes a “bank” under federal law, potentially undermining the credibility of the national banking system built post-financial crises. Critics including BPI, state regulators via CSBS, and community bankers via ICBA highlight potential threats to stability, consumer safety, and anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism compliance if novel firms enter with inadequate tailoring of rules.

The suit would likely challenge the OCC’s authority under the National Bank Act and Administrative Procedure Act (APA), arguing that reinterpretations via Interpretive Letter 1176 and recent changes bypassed formal rulemaking, notice-and-comment periods. A ruling could limit the OCC’s flexibility in chartering novel entities or force clearer boundaries on trust activities.

This pits major banks with leaders like Jamie Dimon on BPI’s board against a Trump-appointed OCC Comptroller. It also complicates administration priorities, especially with ties to ventures like World Liberty Financial. A lawsuit could highlight internal rifts in pro-crypto policy execution. Even the threat increases volatility for crypto stocks and assets and deters applications and investments pending resolution. It could push firms toward state charters or offshore options.

If filed, this joins prior battles e.g., Custodia’s lost Fed master account case. Outcomes might prompt congressional action on digital asset frameworks or stablecoin rules, rather than agency-level fixes. This situation underscores ongoing friction between legacy finance’s risk-averse stance and the crypto sector’s push for regulated integration.

The next few weeks could see a decision on litigation, with major ripple effects depending on whether courts side with procedural arguments or OCC discretion.

Meta Platforms has delayed the launch of its next major artificial intelligence model, code-named “Avocado,” pushing the release to at least May from an earlier plan to debut the system this month, according to a report by The New York Times.

People familiar with the development told Reuters that internal testing shows the model’s capabilities currently fall between the performance levels of Google’s Gemini 2.5 and Gemini 3 systems, prompting Meta engineers to extend development as the company works to close the gap with the most advanced models in the industry.

The delay was announced as the race among major technology firms to build increasingly powerful AI systems has become defined by rapid iteration cycles, massive computing requirements and extremely tight performance benchmarks.

Avocado has been under development for months as Meta seeks to strengthen its position in the fast-evolving generative AI market, where companies are racing to build systems capable of advanced reasoning, coding assistance and multimodal tasks such as processing images, text and audio simultaneously.

However, the model has so far fallen short of the most recent offerings from rivals, according to the report. Rather than release a system perceived as trailing competitors, Meta has opted to delay the launch until May or June, allowing engineers more time to refine performance and training data.

A spokesperson for Meta reiterated remarks previously made by chief executive Mark Zuckerberg during the company’s January earnings call.

“As we’ve said publicly, our next model will be good, but more importantly, show the rapid trajectory we’re on, and then we’ll steadily push the frontier over the course of the year as we continue to release new models,” the spokesperson said.

“We’re excited for people to see what we’ve been cooking very soon,” the spokesperson added.

The delay comes as Meta dramatically increases spending on artificial intelligence infrastructure, part of what has become one of the largest capital-investment programs in the technology sector.

In January, Zuckerberg outlined plans to spend between $115 billion and $135 billion this year, with much of the money directed toward AI development.

The spending spree includes building new data centers, acquiring large quantities of advanced chips used for AI training and inference, and developing proprietary semiconductor technology designed specifically for machine learning workloads. The company’s long-term objective is to build systems capable of achieving “superintelligence,” a theoretical stage where artificial intelligence could outperform humans across many intellectual tasks.

That ambition places Meta among a small group of technology companies investing enormous sums in frontier AI research.

Building Chips and Infrastructure

One of the key pillars of Meta’s AI strategy is reducing reliance on external hardware suppliers by designing its own chips optimized for AI workloads. Custom silicon could allow the company to run massive training clusters more efficiently while lowering long-term costs associated with using third-party processors.

Such moves mirror broader industry trends as technology firms attempt to control more of the AI technology stack — from chips and infrastructure to the models themselves. Training cutting-edge models, which requires thousands of high-performance processors running in massive data centers, has become strategically important in the AI race.

Considering A Rival’s Technology

The New York Times report also said leaders within Meta’s AI division have discussed the possibility of temporarily licensing Google’s Gemini models to power some of the company’s AI products.

While no decision has been reached, such a step would illustrate how rapidly evolving the competitive landscape has become. Even companies building their own models are sometimes willing to rely on external systems to maintain momentum in consumer products while internal development continues.

For Meta, however, adopting a rival’s technology would represent a delicate strategic balancing act, given its substantial investment in developing proprietary AI models.

A Crowded And Expensive Battlefield

Meta’s efforts unfold in a technology sector where companies are spending billions to secure leadership in artificial intelligence. Major firms, including Microsoft and Amazon, are also investing heavily in infrastructure and AI development as generative systems become central to cloud computing, enterprise software, and digital services.

The scale of investment indicates expectations that AI will reshape industries ranging from advertising and media to software engineering and scientific research.

But the technology carries particular importance for Meta.

The company plans to deploy AI systems across its platforms — including Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp — to improve content recommendations, automate moderation, enhance messaging tools, and refine advertising targeting. AI-driven features are also expected to play a role in future products linked to virtual and augmented reality ecosystems.

However, Meta’s postponement of Avocado is seen as a further indication of the growing challenges of competing in an industry where technological advances arrive at an extraordinary speed. Each new model must demonstrate clear improvements in accuracy, reasoning ability, and efficiency while remaining economically viable to operate at a large scale. Releasing a weaker model risks damaging credibility among developers and enterprise users who increasingly depend on AI systems for critical applications.

Analysts say the delay, therefore, underpins an ideal calculation: launching a stronger model later may be preferable to introducing one that fails to match competitors’ capabilities.

Apple announced Thursday that it will reduce commission fees collected through its China App Store, lowering the standard rate on in-app purchases and paid transactions from 30% to 25% effective Sunday, March 15 — World Consumer Rights Day in China.

Developers enrolled in Apple’s Small Business Program or Mini Apps Partner Program will see fees drop from 15% to 12%. The adjustment applies to all developers whose apps are distributed via the China App Store, including international companies such as Duolingo, which generates approximately $50 million annually from the Chinese market.

Apple did not disclose the exact financial impact, but the state-owned Economic Daily estimated the change would save Chinese developers more than 6 billion yuan ($873 million) in annual operating costs.

“This adjustment will… improve consumption choices and information transparency,” the Economic Daily wrote in a Thursday report that framed the fee cut as a victory for Chinese digital consumers.

The newspaper projected that prices for membership subscriptions, game recharges, live-streaming tips, mini-programs, and other scenarios could decrease, potentially saving consumers up to nearly 1 billion yuan per year.

Breakthrough for Super Apps and Mini-Program Ecosystem

The reduction is particularly significant for operators of China’s “super apps” — platforms such as Tencent’s WeChat and ByteDance’s Douyin (TikTok’s Chinese version) — which host millions of third-party mini apps and mini-programs. These lightweight applications operate within the host app and often rely on in-app purchases or paid services.

Lower fees will directly benefit developers building within these ecosystems, potentially spurring innovation and competition in areas such as gaming, education, e-commerce, and social commerce. Rich Bishop, founder of AppInChina — a consultancy that helps foreign developers navigate the Chinese market — told CNBC: “In China’s case, [Apple] have been talking with the IT ministry and other departments, and have been requested or pressured to reduce their fees.”

Bishop noted that the timing, coinciding with World Consumer Rights Day, carries symbolic weight. In 2013, state broadcaster CCTV publicly criticized Apple’s after-sales service, forcing a rare public apology from the company.

Global Scrutiny of the ‘Apple Tax’ Meets Local PressureApple’s 30% “Apple Tax” has faced antitrust scrutiny worldwide. The European Union forced a reduction to 10–17% for most developers under the 2024 Digital Markets Act. In the U.S., Apple now allows alternative payment methods in certain cases following legal challenges. In China, Bloomberg News reported last year that the country’s antitrust regulator was considering an investigation into Apple’s App Store policies, while a consumer antitrust complaint was filed in October 2025 over fee structures.

The fee cut also applies to international developers distributing in China, providing broad relief. Bishop highlighted the potential benefit for apps like Duolingo.

“This will be saving them a decent amount of money,” he said.

Bishop cautioned that further concessions could follow. “In future, the Chinese government may request Apple to collect App Store revenues in China instead of overseas, and further tighten regulatory oversight for foreign apps published in China,” he said.

Apple has previously removed apps such as virtual private networks (VPNs) from the China App Store at the request of internet regulators. VPNs — which allow users to bypass censorship by masking device location — remain a sensitive issue in China, where internet-connected devices carry unique codes disclosing their location.

Apple’s move comes as Google last week reduced Android developer fees worldwide, intensifying competition in app-store economics. The adjustment underlines the unique pressures Apple faces in China, its second-largest market, where regulatory influence is strong and consumer-protection campaigns carry significant political weight.

While the fee reduction will ease costs for developers and potentially lower prices for Chinese consumers, it also points to the ongoing global debate over app-store commission structures. Regulators in multiple jurisdictions continue to scrutinize the 30% standard, with outcomes ranging from mandated fee reductions to alternative payment rails and sideloading options.

In 2020, Apple announced that existing app-makers and new developers who earned $1m or less from Apple’s marketplaces would only have to give up a 15% cut starting in 2021. That reduced by half the standard rate of 30%. The decision follows widespread criticism by developers of the fees Apple charges, which exacerbated the company’s antitrust scrutiny.

The China-specific cut provides immediate relief to developers and super-app ecosystems, for now, while positioning Apple as responsive to local regulatory signals. The longer-term impact, including potential revenue implications for Apple and behavioral changes among developers, will become clearer in the coming quarters as transaction volumes reflect the new pricing.