The price of data: commercialising customer bank information

The Paypers explores how the US’s evolving Open Banking regulations and developments may shape the balance between competition, innovation, and consumer protection.

The US is on the brink of a major Open Banking shift. Unlike the EU and the UK, where regulation drives data sharing, the US market has largely been led by the private sector, with fintechs and banks controlling access to information through proprietary APIs. However, new regulatory moves under the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Section 1033 are set to establish a framework for consumer rights regarding financial data access and portability. This could open the door to wider innovation, fintech partnerships, and monetisation opportunities, while raising critical questions about privacy, consent, and security. In this article, we will dive into the potential Open Finance shifts, exploring the implications of the US adopting a market-driven data monetisation approach.

In August 2025, JPMorgan Chase announced its plans to charge fees on fintech companies that want to access its customer bank account data. This marks a new stage in how major US banks handle third-party data requests tied to fintech use cases following ongoing legal challenges and industry debates. The move can potentially affect intermediaries such as Plaid, Yodlee, and Finicity, companies that bridge the gap between financial institutions and digital apps offering financial solutions.

Previously, fintechs have been able to access consumer data such as deposits, balances, and transaction history without paying banks directly. They used aggregators, which take and transmit data by leveraging APIs or secure login portals. However, JPMorgan Chase is now warning the industry that this model is becoming unsustainable without proper compensation, reflecting a change in the bank’s approach to external data access. This can potentially push the entire industry to reconsider how to participate in this new revenue stream.

Experts signal that the new fees will finance JP Morgan’s platform, designed to protect customer data and ensure long-term platform stability, and infrastructure demands such as fraud monitoring and safety protocols. The charges may vary depending on how the data is utilised, and may be higher for fintechs with payment capabilities such as Venmo, Coinbase, and Robinhood. All these companies rely on data to execute financial transactions, and if the initiative proceeds, they could potentially risk losing profitability.

The situation begs several questions, including how these changes will affect consumers, banks, and third-party companies.

The battle over data control: banks vs fintechs

JPMorgan Chase’s plans, along with upcoming regulatory developments, add a new layer of complexity to the US Open Finance landscape, which remains fragmented compared to regions with clearer frameworks like the UK and Europe. As banks and fintechs continue to redefine their roles and boundaries, data access policies are emerging as a major point of friction. Although JPMorgan has invested heavily in modernising its core technology, maintaining control over data interfaces remains a priority.

This control not only safeguards sensitive customer information but also allows banks to dictate how third parties access and use data. JPMorgan’s new fee structure is a direct extension of this, potentially shaping future negotiations between aggregators and financial institutions while influencing ongoing federal policy discussions. By managing these interfaces and pricing access, banks can protect revenue streams, guide innovation, and assert greater influence over the ever-evolving Open Finance ecosystem.

Companies like Ninth Wave have already developed solutions to help banks monitor and measure how data is used once it’s shared. By controlling information flows and protecting against potential threats, banks remain central to customer trust, ensuring that data interactions are secure, permissioned, and compliant with privacy requirements. Financial institutions can also spot business opportunities based on which third-party application their customers use, and charge fintechs accordingly.

Solutions such as the Ninth Wave Portal aim to offer banks the transparency they need to track data requests originating from external applications made on behalf of banks’ customers. The platform identifies which applications are accessing data, the volume of requests per application, the number of customers leveraging the connectivity, and the performance metrics of the Open Finance APIs. This oversight gives banks a complete picture of who is receiving information and how it’s shared, enabling them to revoke access for any business or individual if suspicious activity is detected.

However, this also means fintechs don’t gain full control over the data they access, since banks can revoke or restrict permissions if suspicious activity or breaches are detected. To maintain trust and ensure continued access, firms may face ongoing compliance costs. This dynamic strengthens banks’ position in negotiations, as they remain the gatekeepers of customer information while also gaining insights into which apps customers prefer, unlocking opportunities for partnerships and monetisation. The downside is that if access is restricted, fintech solutions could lose functionality, potentially leaving their clients without essential services.

Open Banking standards across regions

Lessons from the UK and EU

In the US, open banking isn’t mandated the way it is in the UK or EU. Instead, data sharing is largely market-driven through private agreements and aggregators.

In Europe, the PSD2 directive requires that access to essential payment and account data through APIs must be free, preventing banks from charging third-party providers for regulated information. New portals, such as FIDA and PSD3, reinforce the principle that customer data belongs to the customer. Banks must therefore provide free, standardised access to core financial data when consent is given, while reserving monetisation for value-added services such as premium APIs, analytics, and insights. These proposals also expand the scope beyond Open Banking into Open Finance, covering areas such as pensions, savings, insurance, and investments. However, implementation across the EU remains fragmented, as national approaches vary.

On the flip side, the UK’s model is widely regarded as the global benchmark. Through the Open Banking Implementation Entity (OBIE), it offers one set of API standards and strong regulatory oversight, resulting in high adoption due to unified governance. Like the EU, the UK mandates that access to core data must be free for authorised third parties, while discussions are now turning toward an expansion into Open Finance.

Policy uncertainty and industry pushback in the US

Compared to these regions, the US doesn’t have a national standard, as the CFPB is yet to draft rules for data access, portability, and consumer rights. Unlike the UK’s OBIE, there is no single mandated API framework yet, and the ecosystem is fragmented, as banks, fintechs, and aggregators use their own APIs and contracts. This can lead to inconsistencies in security and monetisation practices.

As new regulatory moves under the CFPB are set to establish a proper framework for Open Banking, 80 companies, including executives from crypto and fintech firms like Gemini, Andreessen Horowitz, Kraken, and Paradigm, urge US President Donald Trump to reconsider bank fees. The group sent a letter arguing that the charges, expected to be implemented in September 2025, interfere with Americans connecting their bank accounts to preferred financial products, weakening progress in financial technology. The signatories also alleged that the US’s largest banks purposely restrict access to essential financial data, shifting control to institutions, hindering competition, and curbing advancements in sectors such as AI, digital wallets, and crypto.

Additionally, on August 22, the CFPB issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking soliciting comments on its forthcoming Open Banking rule. The agency highlighted four key areas for input:

• Clarifying who may act as a consumer’s representative;
• Determining the most appropriate approach to assessing fees that covered persons may charge for responding to customer data requests;
• Evaluating the security risks and cost–benefit considerations tied to compliance with Section 1033 of Dodd–Frank, which underpins Open Banking;
• Addressing potential data privacy concerns linked to Section 1033 compliance.

Section 1033 was issued during the Biden Administration, and it received criticism from industry players as it doesn’t address several issues that arise from the consumer rights it created, including who may act on the consumer’s behalf, or what are the costs associated with offering the requested information. The Trump Administration has now agreed to withdraw the rule, aiming to write a new one through an expedited process.

The potential impact of commercialising data

Competition and compliance issues for fintechs

If US banks start charging for their customer account data, fintech companies, especially those operating on thin margins or relying on free access to information, may face increased costs that will force them to rethink their business models or increase prices. It also raises questions about the long-term viability of Open Banking models in the US.

If access is priced in a way that excludes small innovators, it could lead to less choice for consumers. Larger companies will be better positioned to absorb the costs or negotiate favourable terms, leading to decreased competition in the market, while smaller fintechs may need to explore alternative data sources or develop new income streams to offset the increased cost of information access. The lack of standardised regulations and pricing could create further uncertainty and potentially hinder new developments.

Moreover, complying with the new, complex, and rapidly changing regulatory requirements comes at a high cost. Fintechs must ensure that their systems will meet the imposed standards for data precaution, user consent, and the rules imposed by banks regarding how the information is controlled and accessed.

Another downside for US fintechs comes as firms like Visa are considering closing down their Open Banking units in the US due to the current landscape. These units were meant to act as tools for businesses to gain simplified access to bank data, supporting them in delivering optimal sign-ups and money transfers. Even so, Visa plans to focus its Open Banking strategy on markets such as Europe and LATAM, as regulators in these regions require banks to share data with licensed third parties.

Consumer impact

How end users experience the changes may largely depend on how aggregators and app providers handle added costs. If fintechs absorb the fees, service could continue without disruptions. But if costs are passed on or connections are limited, consumers could face disruptions in how they access financial tools or manage their accounts, as prices could increase.

Data privacy is another issue, as customers are increasingly uneasy about how their financial information is used and who has access to it. Firms monetising data, such as Revolut disclosing private transaction data in a Valentine’s Day ad, have sparked controversy in the past, leading to users feeling like they’ve lost control. Many consumers are aware of the risks, but 76% of them still share personal information if they can gain value-added, tailored services. Yet, as more parties access and handle the data, the risk of breaches or other security issues grows.

Data monetisation in this way can have some advantages as well, offering consumers targeted financial advice, better offers, budgeting tools, or credit solutions. These better and more personalised products may come as banks and large fintechs monetise data with added services, although overall market diversity can shrink.

Banks as data hubs

The push to introduce fees for consumer data follows increased competition between traditional banks and fintech platforms offering modular financial solutions. As customers use apps for budgeting, borrowing, and investing, the focus is shifting away from single-provider banking.

Revenue considerations are also part of the rationale for introducing the fees. JPMorgan earned USD 34 billion in interchange fees from credit and debit card transactions, and a migration toward electronic transfers, which typically generate lower or no fees, may negatively impact this revenue stream. By limiting free data access, the bank can slow or reshape that transition, keeping payment volume within its own ecosystem.

These factors, combined with banks’ continued control over data even after it is shared, strengthen their role in the financial ecosystem and offer them a competitive advantage. Nonetheless, fintech representatives argue that charging for consumer-provided data can create barriers to innovation and limit the ability of smaller players to scale.

Final thoughts

The Open Banking landscape in the US is at a critical turning point. As regulatory frameworks are still evolving and banks start to monetise consumer data, the balance between competition, consumer protection, and development is being reshaped in real time. While data commercialisation could drive more personalised financial services and strengthen data security, it also risks limiting the market access for smaller fintechs, decreasing customer choice, and reducing competition.

How regulators, banks, and fintechs navigate the situation will determine if Open Banking in the US offers a wider array of benefits or consolidates control within a few dominant institutions. In the end, the future of Open Finance in the region will heavily depend on bridging the gap between commercial incentives, technological innovation, and consumer rights.

About Aurora

Aurora is a Junior News Editor at The Paypers. She is passionate about how finance impacts individuals, shapes economic trends, and drives innovation through fintech. With a keen interest in financial inclusion and behavioural finance, she explores the intersection of technology and financial empowerment.