🔴 Website 👉 https://u-s-news.com/
Telegram 👉 https://t.me/usnewscom_channel
On August 21, 2025, Americans for Tax Reform submitted a comment letter urging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to reject price controls on bank data while the bureau revisits a Biden-era rule. In August, the CFPB issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding the revision of the Biden-Era Personal Financial Data Rights Rule to implement Section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Act. Earlier this year, the CFPB initially decided to vacate the rule entirely before changing course to revisit the rule.
Section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank act simply tells banks to make account information accessible for consumers. The Biden CFPB took an expansive approach in its interpretation by issuing a rule that would have effectively mandated banks to hand over their data for free to third party data aggregators and FinTech applications.
In the letter, ATR asserted that the updated rule should avoid instituting price controls and instead allow banks and third parties to negotiate data access at market rates. Liability protections would also need to be updated to ensure data aggregators are held accountable for any potential breaches or compromises.
The finalized Biden PFDR rule which would have effectively imposed a price control on data sharing with third parties by requiring covered persons to provide consumer data to a broad set of third-party firms at no charge, raising significant concerns for both banks and consumers. By prohibiting reasonable cost recovery, the rule shifted substantial expenses onto banks and credit unions, costs which may ultimately be borne by consumers.
The rule also created new data security and privacy risks, as it broadened the scope of third parties entitled to sensitive consumer financial information without establishing clear liability or safeguards against misuse.
Section 1033 guarantees consumer access to their own data, but it does not mandate that this access be provided free of charge to third parties. The cost of this guarantee falls entirely on banks, who are forced to effectively subsidize data aggregators and FinTechs. Mandating something be provided free of charge is a price control. In the face of this subsidization, banks may defray the costs on consumers by adding fees to other services to bank provides, including annual account fees.
Additionally, The U.S. banking industry already spends heavily to maintain secure data environments. U.S. banks collectively invest more than $100 billion each year in technology and cybersecurity. Imposing an unfunded open data mandate diverts resources from other critical areas such as fraud prevention, compliance, and customer service.
These concerns and more were cited in the recommendation to do away with the proposed rule:
A market-based approach in which all parties collaborate and generate a fee schedule agreement would be optimal. Third parties can choose whether to defray their costs by accepting lower margins or charging higher prices for end users. Since not all bank customers are third party users, it would be optimal for users of third-party applications to bear the costs of this proposal rather than shift the cost to all bank customers, many of whom may not derive any benefit from the provisions of Section 1033.
While banks are required to safeguard and secure customer data, third parties should follow similar protocols and procedures to avoid breaches. The Biden PDFR would not have required third parties to use APIs established by banks. The cost to set up and maintain APIs runs in the billions – banks shoulder both upfront investments and continuous costs on cybersecurity, physical infrastructure, and labor. It is not fair for third parties to be exempt from these costs put in place to protect consumers from data breaches.
The fiduciary threshold to qualify as an agent, representative or trustee would not significantly inhibit customers from transferring their data nor impede the growth of the ecosystem that FinTech platforms have built. Banks and data aggregators have entered into contracts specifying prices for data access and many FinTechs that seek to gain from 1033 already charge customers subscription fees for use of their service. The only effect that a restrictive reading of statute would have is that it would prevent unnecessary government interference and rent seeking.
The Biden-era misstep on open banking should not be repeated. In the interest of consumer data privacy, ATR urges the CFPB to refrain from reviving the Biden-era price controls while it is considering revisions to the Personal Financial Data Rights rule.
Read the comment letter here.
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://www.atr.org and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.