A confluence of regulatory activity and policy debates seems to be laying the groundwork for future regulation of consumer financial data aggregation activities. The outcome of these activities could significantly affect how financial data may be shared by financial institutions, controlled by third-party data aggregators, and used by financial technology companies (“fintechs”) in the future.

Last fall, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (the “CFPB” or “Bureau”) brought this issue to the forefront in the United States when it issued a request for information (the “RFI”) on the varied ways that consumer financial data aggregators obtain, maintain, use, and disclose consumers’ financial data.[1] The number of responsive comments filed by stakeholders, including financial institutions, data aggregators, fintechs, and consumer advocates highlight the diverse perspectives that exist regarding the adequacy and application of existing regulations to data aggregation activities. In addition to regulatory scrutiny from the Bureau, at least one member of the Federal Reserve Board (the “FRB”) has stated that the FRB ought to be concerned with data aggregation activities from a bank safety and soundness perspective. At the same time, regulations in the European Union and United Kingdom governing access to consumer financial data are being implemented, both of which provide an interesting juxtaposition for U.S. regulators and companies to consider.

This article provides background information on the growing number of participants involved in data aggregation activities, summarizes the RFI and commentators’ responses, and discusses select regulatory changes in the European Union and United Kingdom affecting the aggregation of consumer financial data. We then conclude with issues that the involved parties should consider in this uncertain regulatory environment.

The Consumer Finance Aggregator Ecosystem

For roughly two decades, “data aggregators” have sought to collect consumers’ financial account information from various financial institutions, including transaction, balance, and fee information relating to credit cards, auto loans, mortgages, and securities. This data is typically obtained with the consumer’s permission by either screen scraping or application program interfaces (“APIs”). Screen scraping occurs when the data aggregator has automated systems to log in to a particular financial institution as a consumer using the consumer’s username and password, and the company takes (or “scrapes”) the account information that is made available online. On the other hand, APIs allow an aggregator to directly connect to a financial institution’s systems and obtain the desired information through an orderly exchange protocol. [2]

On a separate but related track, “product aggregators” primarily obtain consumer financial product information, as opposed to financial account information, to provide a platform that allows consumers to comparison shop for credit cards, auto loans, mortgages, personal loans, and other consumer financial products from multiple providers.[3] These product aggregators have recently evolved to also aggregate consumer financial data, typically by either obtaining a consumer’s express permission to access credit report information and/or by obtaining a consumer’s username and password to access the online banking portals of various financial institutions via screen scraping or APIs. With this access, the product aggregator can use consumers’ detailed personal financial data to make more targeted and tailored offers for financial products and services to the consumer.

Fintechs are increasingly purchasing and using consumer financial data made available through aggregators in creative ways, for example, to alleviate pain points in personal financial management by providing automatic savings programs, budgeting tools, and investment analysis. Aggregators have also created efficiencies for banks and other financial services providers by providing back-end services, including verification of account numbers, consumer information, and transaction histories.

Catalyst for Regulatory Intervention: Diverging Interests Between Banks, Aggregators, Fintechs, and Regulators

In 2015, several large banks shut off aggregators’ access to consumers’ financial account information.[4] The banks pointed to a series of concerns raised by the aggregators’ business models, ranging from internal data security and the enhanced complexities that could arise in the event an aggregator suffers a data breach, to operational limitations on the ability of bank servers to respond to an overwhelming number of aggregator data requests. Following negative feedback from consumers, the banks reversed course days later and allowed aggregators to resume accessing consumers’ data.[5]

The CFPB initially showed interest in the sharing of consumer data with aggregators as part of its “Project Catalyst Initiative.” In a report titled “Promoting consumer-friendly innovation: Innovation Insights,”[6] the CFPB stated that consumer-permissioned access to financial data forms the “basis for personal financial management tools and mechanisms [that can] reduce the time to verify consumers’” accounts and provide other consumer benefits.[7] The report notes that the loss of access to consumer data by these third parties “could cripple or even entirely curtail the further development of such products and services.”[8] CFPB Director Richard Cordray reiterated in a speech that the CFPB is “gravely concerned by reports that some financial institutions are looking for ways to limit, or even shut off, access to financial data rather than exploring ways to make sure that such access, once granted, is safe and secure.”[9]

The CFPB subsequently issued the RFI in an effort to better understand the consumer benefits and risks associated with market developments that rely on access to consumer financial account information. The RFI states that its objectives are to: (1) help the industry develop best practices to deliver benefits to consumers and address potential consumer harms; and (2) evaluate whether any guidance or future rulemaking is needed. It remains to be seen whether the RFI will be the CFPB’s opening salvo into future public action, such as the issuance of guidance, regulations, or enforcement actions relating to the sharing, collection, and use of consumer financial data among fintechs, aggregators, and financial institutions.

CFPB’s RFI on Consumer Financial Records

Statutory Authority to Write Rules Affecting Consumer Access to Electronic Financial Records

The CFPB relies on two distinct provisions of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (“CFPA”) for the potential regulation of consumer financial data aggregation activities and aggregators themselves.[10] Section 1033 of the CFPA gives a consumer the right to request and receive electronic records related to a consumer financial product or service obtained from a financial institution, including transaction, cost, and usage data.[11] The statute exempts certain records from being provided, including: confidential commercial information; information collected to prevent fraud or money laundering; information required to be kept confidential by law; and information that a consumer “cannot retrieve in the ordinary course….”[12] This provision grants the CFPB authority to write implementing rules.[13]

The CFPB’s authority over data security issues is also based on the prohibition of unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices under sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA. The RFI cites to the CFPB’s recent data-security case against Dwolla[14] and the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) past data security activities as relevant precedent to generally assert that “[a]n entity’s consumer data privacy or security practices can violate UDAAP standards.”[15] While the CFPB has filed only one enforcement action involving data security claims, the FTC has similarly used its unfairness authority (under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act) to regulate specific data security practices.[16]

Concerns & Challenges Expressed in the CFPB’s RFI

In the RFI, the CFPB expressed concern that some financial institutions may restrict consumer-permissioned access to financial records in ways “that undermine consumer interests identified in section 1033 [of the Act].”[17] At the same time, the CFPB recognized that, despite the many consumer benefits of financial data sharing that it seeks to foster, legitimate risks need to be addressed, including data security and privacy.

The RFI’s reference to FTC precedent could indicate the CFPB’s willingness to rely on its UDAAP authority to address problematic data security practices involved in consumer financial data aggregation activities. If the CFPB were to go further and propose rules in this area, that regulatory initiative would be the first use of section 1033 and the first use of sections 1031 and 1036 with respect to consumer financial data aggregation.

Data Gathering: Questions in the CFPB’s RFI

The RFI asks twenty questions on how aggregators operate, including current market practices and how those practices will likely change over time. The following is a summary of the questions posed by the RFI.

  • Product Structures & Use: How many consumers are using these services and what are their characteristics? How is financial and non-financial information used to assess eligibility for products? How are offers based on this data being made and by whom?
  • Provision of Data: What incentives or disincentives exist for companies to provide consumer-permissioned data? Why might companies, consumers or aggregators not provide data, g., operational costs, risks, and actual or potential losses, and their specific causes?
  • Data Security: How long is data stored? What security and other risks are incurred by consumers? How are these risks communicated to consumers and mitigated by companies or aggregators?
  • Consumer Understanding: What consumer-facing disclosures are provided? Are consumers told what data are accessed, how often such data are accessed, how such information is used, whether access continues after a consumer stops using a given product, how sharing occurs and under what terms and conditions? Do consumers understand these practices and how does comprehension impact their willingness to consent?
  • Consumer Control: Can consumers control how aggregators use their data, and if so, how? May consumers ask for data about themselves to be deleted?
  • Vendor Management: Do financial institutions vet aggregators before granting access? If so, under what procedures?
  • Adequacy of Industry Standards: Do industry standards currently comply with section 1033? Are they actually adopted by the industry?
  • Expected & Desired Change: How are the current market practices expected to change? How should those practices change?

Responses to the RFI

Responses to the RFI predominantly came from three populations: (1) financial institutions; (2) data aggregators and fintechs; and (3) consumer groups.

Financial Institution Comments. Financial institutions generally argued that the CFPB should define data aggregators as “larger participants” and subject such larger participants to regular supervision. Several financial institutions noted that Regulation E limitations on consumer liability for “unauthorized transactions” should not apply with respect to a bank if improper transactions are initiated as a result of a data aggregator breach or other misconduct. For example, some commentators argued that a consumer who has given an aggregator their log-in credentials has “furnished [an] access device” to the aggregator and thereby assumed any risk from the aggregator exceeding the authority granted to it.[18] Commentators also argued that banks should not be liable for unauthorized transactions initiated by or through data aggregators acting as an “electronic fund transfer service provider” under Regulation E.[19]

Additionally, several financial institutions raised questions regarding when a data aggregator might be considered a bank “service provider” subject to enhanced oversight requirements.[20] Financial institutions also indicated that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) should apply to aggregators and fintechs holding consumer data.[21] Noting that Section 1033 standards should cover data security, authentication, and access, financial institutions argued that access to consumer financial data should be limited to aggregators with whom they have contractual privity, and that the data retrieved by the aggregator must be identified and disclosed to the financial institution. Financial institutions also asked whether the financial institution or the aggregator ought to bear the costs associated with compliance, and indicated that while access to data should remain free to consumers, if aggregators are monetizing data provided by a financial institution, that some of those proceeds should be routed back to the financial institution. Lastly, financial institutions urged the CFPB to consult with the FTC and prudential regulators before issuing any guidance or rulemaking.

Aggregator & Fintech Comments. While the responses from data aggregators, fintechs and their industry groups focused on different issues, one common theme included a plea that banks should not filter or monopolize access to consumer financial information. These companies stated that the liability for unauthorized transactions under Regulation E that might result from improper use of a consumer’s access credentials should not rest with aggregators or fintechs, but rather that liability should remain with banks. Moreover, if liability does shift from banks, that liability should rest with consumers who assumed the risk involved in using their services. They also argued that both aggregators and fintechs obtaining data from banks are not, in the ordinary course, service providers to banks and are not subject to the regulatory burdens associated with bank vendor management programs. When responding to concerns about data security, aggregators and fintechs argued that technology could solve many data security challenges, citing authentication and tokenization protocols as examples.

Consumer Group Comments. Comments from consumer groups identified safe and secure data sharing as a goal that should be shared by financial instructions, data aggregators and fintechs. Consumer groups argued that certain privacy principles should govern the sharing of all consumer data, including: 1) the disclosure of aggregators’ data use and sharing practices; 2) limited storing and use of the data to the specific purpose for which it was obtained; 3) allowing data sharing only where there is authenticated access; and 4) consumer control over data sharing and rights to revoke access. They argued that consumers should not lose Regulation E liability protections for unauthorized transactions when sharing credentials with aggregators, since improper transactions would still be considered “unauthorized” under the regulation. Finally, consumer groups stated that banks should not be permitted to prevent data access for purposes of stifling competition.

From All Sides: Oversight of Data Aggregator Activities as a Safety and Soundness Concern, and Analysis of Regulatory Approaches to Data Access in the EU & UK

In addition to potential oversight from the CFPB, FRB Governor Lael Brainard indicated in an April 2017 speech that the FRB has a stake in overseeing bank relationships with consumer financial data aggregators.[22] She described banks as one of a number of entities in “the fintech stack,” whereby fintechs are able to build upon the core deposit, lending, and payment activities of banks, much like app developers are able to build various applications that use iPhone or Android mobile platforms. Acknowledging current consumer financial data flows from a bank either to an aggregator via screen scraping or API and then to a fintech, or from a bank directly to a fintech via API, Governor Brainard indicated that the FRB has an interest in ensuring the viability and quality of aggregator arrangements from a safety and soundness perspective, presumably along with other prudential regulators.[23] Governor Brainard noted that the importance of “getting these connectivity questions right, including the need to manage the consumer protection risks, is critically important. It could make the difference between a world in which the fintech wave helps community banks become the platforms of the future, on the one hand, or, on the other hand, a world in which fintech instead further widens the gulf between community banks and the largest banks.”[24]

The prudential banking regulators, and the CFPB, could also be influenced by trends in European banking regulation favoring greater access to and sharing of consumer financial data. Indeed, there is a statutory requirement that any rules issued by the CFPB must “take into account conditions under which covered persons do business both in the United States and in other countries.”[25] In her April 2017 speech, Governor Brainard noted the varied approaches to data access being taken by regulators around the world. For example, in the European Union, rules implementing the revised Payment Services Directive (“PSD2”) proposed by the European Banking Authority would require banks to permit licensed third parties to access consumer bank account information via API and ban screen scraping.[26] And the United Kingdom recently required the nine largest banks to share pricing, fees, and terms information via API this year, and will require open-access APIs for consumer transaction data and payment information in 2018.[27] However, Governor Brainard indicated that regulators in the United States may not be ready or able to implement regulations demanding a similar degree of openness, in part because of the way regulatory authorities are broadly distributed (e.g. between multiple federal agencies and states with jurisdictions over different sectors of the financial services industry and actors within the consumer financial data aggregator ecosystem) and certain statutory limitations that predate the current technology, fintech, and aggregator ecosystems.

Operating in an Uncertain Regulatory Environment in the Near Term

The CFPB’s RFI suggests that only basic principles of contract and limited regulatory obligations currently apply to aggregators, and that individual transactional solutions could care for consumer protections and control identified risks, but might not do so in a sufficiently uniform manner.

While regulatory bright lines might be helpful, participants in the consumer data aggregation ecosystem should consider how regulation might help clarify the rights and responsibilities of the involved parties, and allow for greater access to financial data, address data security risk, but at the same time potentially limit or slow technological innovations. Following are only some of the issues that financial institutions, aggregators, and fintechs currently engaged in data aggregation activities may want to consider in the near-term:

Trend Towards Bilateral Agreements Presents an Opportunity to Self-Regulate & Identify Applicable Consumer Protection Laws

A trend towards bilateral agreements between banks and aggregators or fintechs can present an opportunity for participants to demonstrate that regulatory intervention is not necessary and that the industry can self-regulate. Key components of an effective self-regulatory system may include, among other things, a degree of uniformity in bilateral agreement terms that accurately reflect the compliance obligations of the parties under applicable consumer protection laws, including GLBA[28] and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.[29] Notwithstanding the ambiguities regarding the application of those laws to aggregators and fintechs, consumers should be provided clear disclosures describing the ways in which their financial data will be collected, used, and shared by the parties, and be provided with a method to control and perhaps stop those activities.

Privacy & Data Security Protections Are Paramount

With respect to privacy and data security, financial institutions may need to more closely consider the scope of their duty to monitor and protect customer information, and identify responsibilities that should be placed upon aggregators so that their mutual customers’ data is protected, including limitations on the use, disclosure, and sale of such data. The technology used by aggregators for authentication and data protection should be thoroughly vetted, and the consequences of a data breach should be defined, including who is responsible for providing data breach notifications under various state laws and how liability stemming from a data breach might be distributed.

Product Recommendations Using Consumer Data Present UDAAP Risk

With respect to the use of aggregated consumer financial data by product aggregators, companies should consider whether the use of such data creates a perception that products recommended to a consumer by the aggregator have been selected based on the consumer’s individual circumstances. If a particular experience places a consumer in a position of “reasonable reliance” on a product aggregator to “act in the interests of the consumer,” then – to follow the terms of section 1031 of the CFPA – certain conduct by the aggregator, such as product recommendations that are not suitable for the consumer, might be considered “abusive.”

Limits on the Requirement to Make Electronic Data Available

The RFI appears to assume that section 1033 of the CFPA grants aggregators, as a consumer’s agent, largely unfettered access to the consumer’s financial data. But section 1033 only grants “a consumer” the right to request records. Recent case law from the Ninth Circuit indicates that a third party’s access to another company’s computer systems without proper authorization may be prohibited by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA),[30] which carries civil and criminal penalties.[31] In Facebook v. Vachani,[32] a social media aggregator attempted to use Facebook’s systems at the request of Facebook users. Facebook attempted to block the aggregator from accessing its site through an IP block and a cease and desist letter, but the aggregator continued to access the Facebook database despite this explicit restriction on access. The court found the aggregator’s conduct to be a violation of the CFAA. The court provided the following analogy involving a retail bank branch to demonstrate the difference between user and agent access under the CFAA:

Suppose that a person wants to borrow a friend’s jewelry that is held in a safe deposit box at a bank. The friend gives permission for the person to access the safe deposit box and lends him a key. Upon receiving the key, though, the person decides to visit the bank while carrying a shotgun. The bank ejects the person from its premises and bans his reentry. The gun-toting jewelry borrower could not then reenter the bank, claiming that access to the safe deposit box gave him authority to stride about the bank’s property while armed. In other words, to access the safe deposit box, the person needs permission both from his friend (who controls access to the safe) and from the bank (which controls access to its premises). Similarly, for [the aggregator] to continue its campaign using Facebook’s computers, it needed authorization both from individual Facebook users (who controlled their data and personal pages) and from Facebook (which stored this data on its physical servers). Permission from the users alone was not sufficient [under the CFAA] to constitute authorization after Facebook issued the cease and desist letter.[33]

The defendants in this case have filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court to appeal the decision.[34]


As consumer financial data and product aggregation services become more complex and the attendant data security and other risks become correspondingly higher, financial institutions may want to consider whether enhanced contractual protections and more rigorous oversight of aggregators are necessary. At the same time, aggregators and fintechs might consider supporting this additional level of scrutiny to the extent it is necessary to mitigate identified risks, ensure compliance with applicable laws, and demonstrate that regulatory intervention is not necessary. While there seems to be momentum for new regulations affecting consumer financial data and product aggregation activities, policymakers could permit the currently-developing self-regulatory system to develop and monitor the market for weaknesses before intervening. At the same time, the regulatory approaches being developed in the EU and UK can be viewed as test cases for potential consumer financial data policy in the US.