| 摘要: | 近年來先買後付（BNPL）服務蔚為風潮，「 先消費、後付款」的模式在消費者支付能力有限的同時，最大化的滿足其消費需求。BNPL 的出現有效縮小消費者消費慾望與其實際消費能力之差距，然消費者信用過度膨脹之虞，BNPL 弊端漸顯，消費者於業者所設計之不公平遊戲規則中受盡剝削，本於 BNPL 實現普惠金融之初衷，反致消費者未蒙其利而先受其害。
觀各國BNPL 先買後付之監管趨勢，各國正如火如荼建構BNPL 監理框架，惟我國現行法律監管體系下，BNPL 僅適用一般民事法律關係，且由於我國BNPL 業務經營為經濟部管轄範疇，金管會並非租賃公會之主管機關，其僅指導租賃公會制定先買後付《自律規範》因應之，然我國既有法律規範、《自律規範》尚不足以處理BNPL 所衍生之法律風險，BNPL 產業發展環境恐窒礙難行，消費者對於BNPL 商品或服務亦存有擔憂。
本文借鏡先進國家之經驗，透過比較法之梳理與分析，介紹美國、澳洲、歐盟、馬來西亞等各國BNPL 監理政策，並主張我國BNPL 監理之必要性，惟我國尚有本土化之問題，他國法制可否一體適用亦有待商榷。本文先就 BNPL 定性之問題加以釐清，後續就我國BNPL 監理現況與監理策略以為介紹，並自信用監理之角度思量我國未來消費者信用法規建置之必要性，試圖在我國固有法制框架下，以資訊揭露、消費者保護、系統性風險管理、金融監理四大座標，提出可能性高的法制建議以為參酌。
金融監理機關寬嚴尺度之拿捏，牽涉 金融科技創新」與 消費者利益」之兩難，業者追求金融科技創新之同時，監理機關應如何完善消費者保護機制，不致損害消費者保護之核心，方為其執法職能之所在，希冀可透過本文所提出之法制監管建議，實現BNPL 普惠金融利益良善之本質。;In recent years, "Buy Now, Pay Later" (BNPL) services have surged in popularity. The "consume first, pay later" model maximizes consumers′ purchasing needs despite their limited payment capacity, effectively narrowing the gap between consumers′ desires and actual financial capability. However, concerns over excessive consumer credit expansion have emerged, exposing the drawbacks of BNPL. Consumers are often exploited by unfair rules designed by service providers. Although BNPL was initially intended to promote Financial
Inclusion, it has inadvertently caused harm to consumers instead.
Observing the global regulatory trends for BNPL, many countries are actively constructing regulatory frameworks. However, under Taiwan′s current legal and regulatory framework,BNPL is governed solely by civil law. Since BNPL operations fall under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Economic Affairs rather than the Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC), the FSC has merely guided the leasing association to develop self-regulatory guidelines for BNPL.
Nonetheless, existing legal norms and self-regulation are insufficient to address the legal risks arising from BNPL, potentially hindering industry development and raising consumer concerns about BNPL products or services.
This paper draws on the experiences of advanced countries by reviewing and analyzing comparative legal frameworks in the United States, Australia, the European Union, and Malaysia. It advocates for the necessity of BNPL regulation in Taiwan while recognizing the need to localize regulatory practices and evaluate whether foreign legal frameworks can be fully adopted. The paper clarifies the definitional issues surrounding BNPL and introduces Taiwan′s current regulatory landscape and supervisory strategies. From the perspective of credit supervision, it considers the need to establish consumer credit regulations and proposes legal recommendations based on four key pillars: information disclosure, consumer protection, systemic risk management, and financial supervision.
Striking a balance between regulatory stringency and leniency involves navigating the dilemma between "financial technology innovation" and "consumer interests." While service providers pursue financial technology innovation, regulatory authorities must establish comprehensive consumer protection mechanisms without undermining core consumer rights. It is hoped that the regulatory recommendations proposed in this paper will contribute to realizing the positive potential of BNPL in promoting Financial Inclusion. |
