Don't make American consumers pay for financial data sharing

Open Banking is one of the most important transformations in modern American finance, yet this transformation is quietly facing a threat.

Under new leadership, the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is taking steps to terminate Rule 1033—a rule designed to give American consumers full control over their financial data. Critics argue that repealing the rule is justified for consumer protection reasons, but in reality, this rollback will harm consumers, slow innovation, and weaken competition within the banking industry.

Rule 1033 is simple yet powerful: it states that consumers should be able to access their own financial data and share it with other service providers. This makes it easier for consumers to compare and switch financial service providers, thereby creating a level playing field for large banks, community banks, credit unions, and fintech companies. The rule gives consumers access to better products, better prices, and greater control, while also allowing lenders to use richer data to make more informed and fairer credit decisions, especially for those overlooked by the traditional credit system.

Today, this vision is at risk. Earlier this month, the CFPB wrote in a federal court filing: "The rule is not lawful and should be vacated," and asked a U.S. district court in Kentucky to immediately invalidate the rule. If successful, this would open the door for banks to charge consumers for data access.

This is not consumer protection; it is adding fees to people's ability to live their financial lives. It entrenches the status quo and creates new barriers just as innovation is beginning to break through.

The CFPB claims that Rule 1033 makes banks and consumers more vulnerable to data breaches. But international experience shows the opposite: in the absence of a standard, secure way to share data, consumers will turn to a range of riskier alternatives, such as emailing bank statements or revealing their login credentials to other providers so they can access their accounts.

Open banking allows consumers to choose the institutions they trust and gives them the tools to act on that choice. Consumers' banking data belongs to them; banks should not be allowed to charge consumers when they request data sharing, just as they should not be allowed to charge consumers for viewing their own data. In the UK and Australia, open banking has been in place for years, expanding and improving access to credit, thereby driving real competition. These elements give all consumers more freedom and give underserved groups greater participation.

Open banking strengthens the free market. If consumers benefit most from competition rather than regulation, then open banking is a key part of the solution, making it easier for individuals to shop around and switch providers. When customers can share their transaction history with a new provider in just a few clicks, loyalty becomes something to be earned, not inherited.

Pausing or weakening Rule 1033 would not only hinder innovation but also send a signal that the system operates best when closed, controlled, and favorable to the largest players. That is not the direction America should take.

There is certainly room for robust discussion about implementation, security, and oversight. But the core idea—that people should be able to use their own financial data to improve their financial lives—should not be controversial.

The system should empower consumers, not set up toll booths. Rule 1033 is a step in the right direction. Rolling back now would be a costly mistake.