`[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 222 (Monday, November 18, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 90838-90998]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25079]



[[Page 90837]]

Vol. 89

Monday,

No. 222

November 18, 2024

Part II





 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





12 CFR Parts 1001 and 1033





Required Rulemaking on Personal Financial Data Rights; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 90838]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

12 CFR Parts 1001 and 1033

[Docket No. CFPB-2023-0052]
RIN 3170-AA78


Required Rulemaking on Personal Financial Data Rights

AGENCY: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is issuing a 
final rule to carry out the personal financial data rights established 
by the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA). The final rule 
requires banks, credit unions, and other financial service providers to 
make consumers' data available upon request to consumers and authorized 
third parties in a secure and reliable manner; defines obligations for 
third parties accessing consumers' data, including important privacy 
protections; and promotes fair, open, and inclusive industry standards.

DATES: This final rule is effective January 17, 2025.
    Compliance dates: Data providers must comply with the requirements 
in 12 CFR part 1033, subparts B and C beginning April 1, 2026; April 1, 
2027; April 1, 2028; April 1, 2029; or April 1, 2030, pursuant to the 
criteria set forth in Sec.  1033.121(c).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Karithanom, Regulatory 
Implementation and Guidance Program Analyst, Office of Regulations, at 
202-435-7700 or https://reginquiries.consumerfinance.gov/. If you 
require this document in an alternative electronic format, please 
contact [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

Abbreviations and Acronyms

I. Overview
    A. Summary of the Final Rule
    B. Market Background
II. The Proposal and Other Procedural Background
    A. Outreach
    B. Summary of the Proposed Rule
    C. 2024 Industry Standard-Setting Final Rule
III. Legal Authority
    A. CFPA Section 1033
    B. CFPA Sections 1022(b) and 1024(b)(7)
    C. CFPA Section 1002
IV. Discussion of the Final Rule
    12 CFR part 1033
    General Comments Received on the Proposal
    A. Subpart A--General
    B. Subpart B--Making Covered Data Available
    C. Subpart C--Data Provider Interfaces; Responding to Requests
    D. Subpart D--Authorized Third Parties
    12 CFR part 1001
V. Effective and Compliance Dates
VI. CFPA Section 1022(b) Analysis
    A. Statement of Need
    B. Data and Evidence
    C. Coverage of the Rule
    D. Baseline for Consideration of Costs and Benefits
    E. Potential Benefits and Costs to Consumers and Covered Persons
    F. Potential Impacts on Insured Depository Institutions and 
Insured Credit Unions With $10 Billion or Less in Total Assets, as 
Described in Section 1026
    G. Potential Impacts on Consumers in Rural Areas, as Described 
in Section 1026
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
    A. Small Business Review Panel
    B. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act
IX. Congressional Review Act
X. Severability

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ACH = Automated Clearing House
ANPR = Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
API = Application programming interface
APR = Annual percentage rate
APY = Annual percentage yield
ATO = Account takeover
BLS = U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
BNPL = Buy Now Pay Later
EBT = Electronic benefit transfer
FDIC = Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
FFIEC = Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council
FRFA = Final regulatory flexibility analysis
FTC = Federal Trade Commission
IRFA = Initial regulatory flexibility analysis
LEI = Legal Entity Identifier
MSA = Metropolitan statistical area
NAICS = North American Industry Classification System
NCUA = National Credit Union Administration
NPRM = Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
OCC = Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (U.S. Department of 
the Treasury)
OFAC = Office of Foreign Assets Control (U.S. Department of the 
Treasury)
OMB = Office of Management and Budget (Executive Office of the 
President)
RFI = Request for Information
SBA = U.S. Small Business Administration
SBA Advocacy = U.S. Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy
SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
SSN = Social Security number
TAN = Tokenized account number
URL = Uniform resource locator
USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture

I. Overview

A. Summary of the Final Rule

    When Congress established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
in the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), it sought to ensure 
that markets for consumer financial products and services are fair, 
transparent, and competitive.\1\ CFPA section 1033 lets consumers take 
action by giving them a right to access their account information and 
authorize certain third parties acting on their behalf to access that 
information. This right enables consumers to evaluate their account 
relationships and switch providers that are not benefiting them, and 
allows consumers to authorize third parties to access data on their 
behalf to provide valuable products and services they request. 
Increased competition can lead to innovation, attractive rates, quality 
service, and other benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 12 U.S.C. 5511(a). The CFPA is title X of the Dodd-Frank 
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203, 
124 Stat. 1376, 2008 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, CFPA section 1033(a) and (b) provide that, subject to 
rules prescribed by the CFPB, a covered person shall make available to 
a consumer, upon request, information in the control or possession of 
the covered person concerning the consumer financial product or service 
that the consumer obtained from such covered person, subject to certain 
exceptions. The information must be made available in an electronic 
form usable by consumers. In addition, Congress mandated in section 
1033(d) that the CFPB prescribe standards to promote the development 
and use of standardized formats for data made available under section 
1033.
    This final rule carries out these objectives by empowering 
consumers to access account data controlled by providers of certain 
consumer financial products or services in a safe, secure, reliable, 
and competitive manner. When implemented, consumers will be able to 
access their own data and authorize third parties to access their data 
safely and with confidence that the third party is acting on their 
behalf, which means not collecting, using, or retaining consumer data 
for the benefit of entities other than the consumer. Consumers and 
authorized third parties will be able access data securely, ensuring 
that a baseline set of security standards apply across the market. They 
also will be able to access data reliably, promoting the accurate and 
consistent transmission of usable data. Consumer-authorized data access 
under the final rule also will occur in a manner that promotes 
competition through standardization and other measures to avoid 
entrenching incumbent data providers, intermediaries, and third parties 
that

[[Page 90839]]

have commercial interests not always aligned with the interests of 
consumers and competition generally.

Coverage

    In general, the final rule requires a ``data provider'' to make 
``covered data'' about ``covered financial products and services'' 
available in electronic form to consumers and to certain ``authorized 
third parties.'' For this purpose, an authorized third party is a third 
party that has complied with the authorization procedures set forth in 
subpart D of part 1033.
    A ``data provider'' includes depository institutions (including 
credit unions) and nondepository institutions that issue credit cards, 
hold transaction accounts, issue devices to access an account, or 
provide other types of payment facilitation products or services. The 
final rule does not apply to certain small depository institutions as 
defined in the rule. In general, ``covered data'' includes information 
about transactions, costs, charges, and usage. This coverage is 
intended to prioritize some of the most beneficial use cases for 
consumers and leverage data providers' existing capabilities. 
Clarifying the scope of the data access right will also promote 
consistency in the data made available to consumers, reduce costs of 
arranging for access to such data, and focus the development of 
technical standards around such data.
Access Requirements
    The final rule generally requires a data provider to make covered 
data available to consumers and authorized third parties upon request. 
The rule includes a number of functional requirements intended to 
ensure data providers make covered data available reliably, securely, 
and in a way that promotes competition. A data provider must make 
covered data available to authorized third parties in a standardized 
and machine-readable format and in a commercially reasonable manner, 
including by meeting a minimum response rate with respect to requests 
for covered data. A data provider must not unreasonably restrict the 
frequency with which it receives or responds to requests for covered 
data from an authorized third party. In addition, the data provider 
cannot comply with the requirement to make data available to authorized 
third parties by allowing the third party to engage in ``screen 
scraping,'' an access method that uses consumer credentials to log in 
to consumer accounts to retrieve data.\2\ The final rule also prohibits 
fees or charges related to consumer and third party data access. The 
final rule also requires a data provider to publicly disclose certain 
information about itself to facilitate access to covered data and to 
promote accountability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Unless otherwise stated, the term ``screen scraping'' in 
this final rule refers to credential-based screen scraping, which is 
prevalent in the market today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule uses the term ``developer interface'' to refer to the 
functionality through which a data provider receives requests for 
covered data and makes the data available in electronic form usable by 
authorized third parties. Similarly, the rule uses the term ``consumer 
interface'' as a label for the functionality with respect to consumer 
access. In neither case does the rule require the use of any particular 
technology.
Authorized Third Parties
    To become an authorized third party, a third party must seek access 
to covered data on behalf of a consumer to provide a product or service 
that the consumer requested and: (1) provide the consumer with an 
authorization disclosure containing certain key terms of the data 
access; (2) provide a statement to the consumer in the authorization 
disclosure certifying that the third party agrees to certain 
obligations set forth in the final rule; and (3) obtain the consumer's 
express informed consent to access covered data on behalf of the 
consumer by obtaining an authorization disclosure that is signed by the 
consumer electronically or in writing.
    Under the final rule, a third party must certify to limit its 
collection, use, and retention of covered data to what is reasonably 
necessary to provide the consumer's requested product or service. For 
purposes of this certification, targeted advertising, cross-selling, 
and the sale of covered data are not part of, or reasonably necessary 
to provide, any other product or service. The final rule includes 
examples of uses that are considered reasonably necessary to provide 
consumer requested products or services.
    In addition to this general limit on collection, use, and retention 
of covered data, the third party also must certify to limit the 
duration of collection of covered data pursuant to a given 
authorization to a maximum period of one year. To continue collection, 
the third party must obtain a new authorization from the consumer no 
later than the anniversary of the most recent authorization. If a 
consumer does not provide a new authorization or if a consumer revokes 
authorization, the third party will cease its collection of covered 
data and cease its use and retention of covered data that was 
previously collected unless use or retention of that covered data 
remains reasonably necessary to provide the consumer's requested 
product or service.
    Under the final rule, a third party must also certify to:
     Have written policies and procedures that are reasonably 
designed to ensure that covered data are accurately received from a 
data provider and, if applicable, accurately provided to other third 
parties.
     Apply an information security program to its systems for 
the collection, use, and retention of covered data. Generally, the 
program must satisfy the applicable rules issued pursuant to the 
Safeguards Framework of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), 15 U.S.C. 
6801 et seq. (GLBA Safeguards Framework).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The GLBA Safeguards Framework in this final rule refers the 
rules issued by the FTC and the guidelines issued by the prudential 
regulators that generally implement the GLBA's data security 
safeguards framework, pursuant to sections 501 (15 U.S.C. 6801) and 
505 (15 U.S.C. 6805) of the GLBA. See Safeguards Rule, 16 CFR part 
314; Interagency Guidelines Establishing Standards for Safety and 
Soundness, 12 CFR part 30, app. A (OCC); 12 CFR part 208, app. D-1 
(Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Rsrv. Sys.); 12 CFR part 364, app. A 
(FDIC); and 12 CFR 748, app. A (NCUA). The GLBA Safeguards Framework 
sets forth standards for administrative, technical, and physical 
safeguards with respect to financial institutions' customer 
information. These standards generally apply to the security and 
confidentiality of customer records and information, anticipated 
threats or hazards to the security or integrity of such records, and 
unauthorized access to or use of such records or information that 
could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to any customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Provide the consumer with a copy of the authorization 
disclosure that the consumer has signed electronically or in writing 
and contact information that enables a consumer to receive answers to 
questions about the third party's access to the consumer's covered 
data.
     Have reasonable written policies and procedures designed 
to ensure that the third party provides to the consumer, upon request, 
certain information about the third party's access to the consumer's 
covered data.
     Provide the consumer with a method to revoke the third 
party's authorization. Additionally, the third party will certify that 
it will notify the data provider, any data aggregator, and other third 
parties to which it has provided the consumer's covered data when the 
third party receives a consumer's revocation request.

[[Page 90840]]

     Require other third parties, by contract, to comply with 
specified third party obligations before providing covered data to 
them.
Data Aggregators
    The final rule permits data aggregators to perform the 
authorization procedures described in the final rule on behalf of the 
third party seeking the consumer's authorization. The third party 
seeking the consumer's authorization remains responsible for compliance 
with the authorization procedures even if it uses a data aggregator to 
perform the authorization procedures. If the third party will use a 
data aggregator to assist with accessing covered data, the data 
aggregator must certify to the consumer that it will satisfy the third 
party obligations discussed above (except the obligation to ensure 
consumers are informed, including the obligation to provide a copy of 
the authorization disclosure and contact information, and the 
obligation to provide a revocation mechanism), and this certification 
must be provided to the consumer. The third party may include this 
certification in the authorization disclosure or the data aggregator 
may provide it separately. Additionally, the third party's 
authorization disclosure must include the data aggregator's name and a 
description of the services that the data aggregator will provide in 
connection with accessing the consumer's covered data.
Policies and Procedures, and Recordkeeping for Data Providers and Third 
Parties
    The final rule requires a data provider to have written policies 
and procedures that are reasonably designed to achieve certain 
objectives, including those related to what covered data are generally 
made available, how a data provider responds to requests for developer 
interface access and requests for information, the accuracy of data 
transmitted through an interface, and record retention.
    A third party that is a covered person or service provider as 
defined in the CFPA (12 U.S.C. 5481(6) and (26)), must establish and 
maintain written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed 
to ensure retention of records that are evidence of compliance for a 
reasonable period of time, not less than three years after a third 
party obtains the consumer's most recent authorization.
Financial Products or Services (Part 1001)
    The final rule defines financial products or services under the 
CFPA to ensure that it includes providing financial data processing. 
This provides additional assurance that financial data processing by 
third parties or others is subject to the CFPA and its prohibition on 
unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts or practices.

B. Market Background

    Digitization in consumer finance has the potential to facilitate 
more seamless consumer switching and greater competition. Consumers' 
ability to easily switch providers of consumer financial products and 
services creates strong competitive incentives that result in superior 
customer service and more favorable terms for consumers. Consumer-
authorized sharing of personal financial data can produce positive 
market outcomes, but without appropriate safeguards it can also lead to 
misuse and abuse of consumer data.
Development of Electronic Data Access and Open Banking
    Most consumers with a bank account are enrolled in digital banking 
through online banking or mobile applications, and more than two-thirds 
use it as their primary method of account access.\4\ Consumer 
interfaces generally provide free access to information such as 
balances, transactions, and at least some terms of service. These 
consumer interfaces may provide additional functionality, such as 
allowing consumers to move money, manage their accounts, and download 
financial data.\5\ Building on these developments, open banking \6\ 
emerged in the early 2000s, along with interfaces designed for 
developers of products or services to request consumer information, and 
related industry standard setting activity.\7\ Third parties, such as 
personal financial advisors, often outsourced establishing and 
maintaining connections with data providers to data aggregators. These 
intermediaries largely relied on ``screen scraping.'' Widespread screen 
scraping allowed open banking to grow quickly in the U.S. Screen 
scraping became a significant point of contention between third parties 
and data providers, in part due to its inherent risks, such as the 
proliferation of shared consumer credentials and overcollection of 
data.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., National Survey of Unbanked and 
Underbanked Households (2021), https://www.fdic.gov/analysis/household-survey/2021report.pdf.
    \5\ For a more detailed discussion of the history of digital 
banking, see the NPRM, 88 FR 74796, 74797-98 (Oct. 31, 2023).
    \6\ This final rule generally uses the term ``open banking'' to 
refer to the network of entities sharing personal financial data 
with consumer authorization. Some stakeholders use the term ``open 
finance'' because of the role of nondepositories as important data 
sources. The CFPB views the two terms as interchangeable, but 
generally uses ``open banking'' because that term is more commonly 
used in the U.S.
    \7\ Maria Trombly, Citibank's Aggregation Portal a Big Draw, 
Computerworld (Sept. 18, 2000), https://www.computerworld.com/article/2597099/citibank-s-aggregation-portal-a-big-draw.html; Off. 
of the Comptroller of the Currency, Bank-Provided Account 
Aggregation Services: Guidance to Banks (2001), https://www.occ.treas.gov/news-issuances/bulletins/2001/bulletin-2001-12.html; CNET, Net earnings: E-commerce in 1997 (Dec. 24, 1997), 
https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/net-earnings-e-commerce-in-1997/; Microsoft, OFX Consortium Expands with Bank of America, 
Citigroup, Corillian, E*TRADE and TD Waterhouse (Oct. 2, 2001), 
https://news.microsoft.com/2001/10/02/ofx-consortium-expands-with-bank-of-america-citigroup-corillian-etrade-and-td-waterhouse/.
    \8\ For a more detailed discussion of the history of screen 
scraping, see NPRM, 88 FR 74796, 74797-99 (Oct. 31, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In recent years, the open banking system has continued to grow as 
consumer reliance on products and services powered by consumer-
authorized data access has expanded. However, this growth has been 
uneven, with various disputes among system participants continuing to 
arise. Despite these challenges, financial institutions are dedicating 
more resources to developing open banking infrastructure, indicating 
significant consumer demand for open banking use cases, as well as 
interest among incumbents in maintaining some control over the system.
State of the Open Banking System
    The CFPB estimates that, as of 2022, at least 100 million consumers 
had authorized a third party to access their account data. In 2022, the 
number of individual instances in which third parties accessed or 
attempted to access consumer financial accounts is estimated to have 
exceeded 50 billion and may have been as high as 100 billion, figures 
that vastly exceed the comparable public figures from some other 
jurisdictions' open banking systems, even on a per-capita basis.\9\ 
These figures are likely to grow as consumer engagement continues and 
use cases expand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Press Release, Open Banking Ltd., Open banking marks 
major milestone of 10 million users (July 23, 2024), https://www.openbanking.org.uk/news/open-banking-marks-major-milestone-of-10-million-users/; and Consumer Data Right, Performance, Overview, 
API Invocations, https://www.cdr.gov.au/performance (scroll down to 
``Overview'' dashboard; then, near the top right of dashboard, 
select ``Date Slider''; then update date range from ``1/1/2022'' to 
``12/31/2022''; then view updated ``API Invocations'' data on the 
bottom left of dashboard) (last visited Oct. 16, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The open banking system also engages a large number of entities, 
including thousands of depository institutions and third parties. A 
growing number of entities now serve as both data

[[Page 90841]]

providers and third parties. For example, many depositories now act as 
third parties by offering personal financial management tools, while 
some entities offering so-called neobank accounts and digital wallets 
act as data providers. Most third party access is effectuated via a 
small number of aggregators, although some third parties elect to 
access at least some data directly.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For a more detailed discussion of the makeup of the market, 
see NPRM, 88 FR 74796, 74798 (Oct. 31, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third party data access is generally enabled via screen scraping or 
developer interfaces.\11\ Based on feedback received through public 
comments and stakeholder outreach, there is nearly universal consensus 
that safer forms of data access should supplant screen scraping.\12\ 
However, to this point, such a transition has required data providers 
to choose to develop and maintain safer forms of data access, and 
required agreement between such providers and third parties on the 
resulting terms of data access, both of which have proved to be 
challenging propositions.\13\ In spite of these challenges, open 
banking use cases continue to emerge and develop. Major use cases 
include personal financial management tools, payment applications and 
digital wallets, credit underwriting (including cashflow underwriting), 
and identity verification. While many major use cases began as 
innovative offerings by third parties, incumbent financial institutions 
have adopted many of them in response to consumer demand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For a more detailed discussion of these methods, see id.
    \12\ See, e.g., Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, Bureau Symposium: 
Consumer Access to Financial Records Report, at 3-4 (July 2020), 
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_bureau-symposium-consumer-access-financial-records_report.pdf.
    \13\ For a more detailed discussion of this transition, see 
NPRM, 88 FR 74796, 74798-99 (Oct. 31, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Challenges in the Open Banking System
    Though the open banking system in the U.S. has grown considerably, 
significant challenges remain to achieving safe, secure, reliable, and 
competitive open banking. Divergent interests in the market with 
respect to the scope, terms, and mechanics of data access, and problems 
with the responsible collection, use, and retention of data have 
impeded the transition to safer forms of data access and the 
development of market-wide standards. This leads to inconsistent data 
access for consumers and market inefficiencies. These dynamics also 
impel third parties to rely on intermediaries, which have interests 
that may not always advance open banking since they stand to benefit 
from existing private network effects.
    Market participants' interests may diverge due to interrelated 
competitive, legal, and regulatory factors. For example, data providers 
may limit the data they share or refrain from sharing altogether to 
protect their market position, while third parties may collect more 
data than they reasonably need to provide the products or services 
sought by the consumer.\14\ Such unnecessary collection, use, and 
retention of consumer data by third parties does not benefit consumers 
and needlessly encroaches on consumers' privacy interests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For a more detailed discussion of divergent interests 
present in the market and the risks created by particular practices, 
including screen scraping, see id. at 74798-99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Impacts of These Challenges on the Open Banking System
    The challenges described above have impeded progress on safer forms 
of data access and hampered multilateral efforts by industry to 
establish open banking standards.\15\ This stasis has forced the open 
banking system to depend heavily on a handful of data aggregators that 
accrue economic benefits from the system's inability to scale safer 
forms of data access and open industry standards. Dependency on a 
handful of data aggregators creates incentives for them to rent-seek 
and self-preference. In a more open system where safer forms of data 
access are appropriately accessible and third parties are easily 
verified, third parties and data providers may choose to connect 
without intermediaries if they wish, or continue to use them to the 
extent they offer compelling value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For a more detailed discussion of how such progress has 
been hampered, see id. at 74799.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the challenges impeding progress described above are resolved, 
consumers should be able to safely, securely, and reliably exercise 
their data access rights in a competitive open banking system not 
dominated by the interests of any one segment of the market.

II. The Proposal and Other Procedural Background

A. Outreach

    In addition to the industry and community outreach described in the 
proposal,\16\ in 2016, the CFPB published in the Federal Register an 
RFI Regarding Consumer Access to Financial Information on topics 
including consumer-authorized data access \17\ and in 2020 held a 
symposium with stakeholders \18\ and published an ANPR in the Federal 
Register.\19\ Pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA),\20\ the CFPB in 2022 issued its Outline 
of Proposals and Alternatives under Consideration for the Required 
Rulemaking on Personal Financial Data Rights (Outline or SBREFA 
Outline) \21\ and in 2023 convened a SBREFA Panel,\22\ which issued a 
report (Panel Report or SBREFA Panel Report).\23\ In December 2023, 
CFPB staff met with the Consumer Advisory Board, the Community Bank 
Advisory Council, and the Credit Union Advisory Council to receive 
feedback on the proposed rule.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 88 FR 74796, 74799 (Oct. 31, 2023). This outreach 
included the issuance of two sets of market monitoring orders under 
CFPA section 1022(c)(4) (described in the proposed rule as the 
``Provider Collection'' and ``Aggregator Collection''), and 
engagement with CFPB advisory boards and committees.
    \17\ See 81 FR 83806 (Nov. 22, 2016). In 2017, the CFPB 
published a summary of comments received in response to the RFI and 
other stakeholder meetings. See Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, 
Consumer-authorized financial data sharing and aggregation: 
Stakeholder insights that inform the Consumer Protection Principles 
(Oct. 18, 2017), https://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/research-reports/consumer-protection-principles-consumer-authorized-financial-data-sharing-and-aggregation/.
    \18\ See Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, Bureau Symposium: Consumer 
Access to Financial Records: A summary of the proceedings (July 
2020), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_bureau-symposium-consumer-access-financial-records_report.pdf.
    \19\ See 85 FR 71003 (Nov. 6, 2020).
    \20\ Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
    \21\ Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, Small Business Advisory Review 
Panel for Required Rulemaking on Personal Financial Data Rights, 
Outline of Proposals and Alternatives under Consideration (Oct. 27, 
2022), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_data-rights-rulemaking-1033-SBREFA_outline_2022-10.pdf.
    \22\ The Panel consisted of a representative from the CFPB, the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and 
a representative from the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs in OMB.
    \23\ Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, Final Report of the Small 
Business Review Panel on the CFPB's Proposals and Alternatives Under 
Consideration for the Required Rulemaking on Personal Financial Data 
Rights (Mar. 30, 2023), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_1033-data-rights-rule-sbrefa-panel-report_2023-03.pdf. As required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the CFPB 
considered the Panel's findings in its IRFA, as set out in the NPRM. 
See 88 FR 74796, 74862 (Oct. 31, 2023). The CFPB considered the 
feedback it received from small entity representatives and the 
findings and recommendations of the Panel. The CFPB invited other 
stakeholders to submit feedback on the SBREFA Outline, which was not 
considered by the Panel and is not reflected in the Panel Report. 
See https://www.regulations.gov/document/CFPB-2023-0011-0001/comment.
    \24\ This feedback was submitted to the rulemaking docket. See 
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/CFPB-2023-0052-11086 (Community 
Bank Advisory Council); https://www.regulations.gov/comment/CFPB-2023-0052-11087 (Credit Union Advisory Council); https://www.regulations.gov/comment/CFPB-2023-0052-11088 (Consumer Advisory 
Board).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 90842]]

    Before and after issuing the proposal, CFPB staff met on numerous 
occasions to obtain feedback from staff from the Board of Governors of 
the Federal Reserve System, OCC, FDIC, NCUA, and FTC, including on the 
subjects in CFPA sections 1022(b)(2)(B) and 1033(e). CFPB staff has 
also met with staff from other Federal agencies, including staff from 
the USDA, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the U.S. Department of 
Justice, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Federal Housing Finance 
Agency, as well as staff from State agencies.

B. Summary of the Proposed Rule

    On October 19, 2023, the CFPB released the notice of proposed 
rulemaking for the Required Rulemaking on Personal Financial Data 
Rights. The proposal was published in the Federal Register on October 
31, 2023, and the public comment period closed on December 29, 2023. 
See 88 FR 74796 (Oct. 31, 2023).
Part 1033
    The proposal would have implemented CFPA section 1033 by ensuring 
consumers and third parties who are authorized to access covered data 
on behalf of consumers can access covered data in an electronic form 
from data providers. In general, the proposal sought to foster a data 
access framework that is safe, by ensuring third parties are acting on 
behalf of consumers when accessing their data, including with respect 
to consumers' privacy interests; secure, by applying a consistent set 
of security standards across the market; reliable, by promoting the 
accurate and consistent transmission of data that are usable by 
consumers and authorized third parties; and competitive, by promoting 
standardization and not entrenching the roles of incumbent data 
providers, intermediaries, and third parties whose commercial interests 
might not align with the interests of consumers and competition 
generally. The proposed rule sought to foster this kind of framework by 
direct regulation of practices in the market and by identifying areas 
in which fair, open, and inclusive standards can develop to provide 
additional guidance to the market. Consistent with the statutory 
mandate in CFPA section 1033(d), various provisions in the proposed 
rule sought to promote the use and development of standardized formats. 
The proposal identified six general objectives to be achieved by its 
various provisions.
    First, the proposal would have clarified the scope of data access 
rights under CFPA section 1033 by defining key terms, establishing 
which covered persons would be required to make data available to 
consumers, and defining which data would need to be made available to 
consumers. Second, the proposal would have established basic standards 
for data access by requiring data providers to maintain a consumer 
interface for consumers and a developer interface for third parties to 
access consumer-authorized data under CFPA section 1033. Data providers 
would have been required to make available covered data to authorized 
third parties in a standardized format, in a commercially reasonable 
manner, without unreasonable access caps, and pursuant to certain 
security specifications. In addition, data providers would have had to 
follow certain procedures to disclose information about themselves and 
their developer interfaces, and to establish and maintain certain 
written policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the 
provisions of the rule and promote the objectives of CFPA section 1033. 
Third, the proposal would have prevented data providers from allowing a 
third party to access the system using consumer interface credentials. 
This and the proposals described above were intended to transition the 
market from screen scraping towards an access method that complies with 
CFPA section 1033. Fourth, the proposal would have defined the 
mechanics of data access by proposing certain requirements and 
clarifications with respect to when a data provider must make available 
covered data upon request to consumers and authorized third parties. 
Fifth, the proposal sought to ensure third parties are acting on behalf 
of consumers through requirements that a third party certify to 
consumers that it will only collect, use, and retain the consumer's 
data to the extent reasonably necessary to provide the consumer's 
requested product or service. The proposed rule also sought to improve 
consumers' understanding of third parties' data practices by requiring 
a clear and conspicuous authorization disclosure including key facts 
about the third party and its practices. Other key protections in the 
proposed rule would have included limiting the length of data access 
authorizations and requiring deletion of consumer data in many cases 
when a consumer's authorization expires or is revoked. Sixth, the 
proposal sought to promote fair, open, and inclusive industry standards 
by proposing that conformance with ``qualified industry standards'' 
issued by standard-setting bodies recognized by the CFPB would provide 
some indicia of compliance with various rule provisions.
Part 1001
    Separately, the proposed rule would have defined financial products 
or services under the CFPA in 12 CFR part 1001 to ensure that the 
definition includes providing financial data processing. The proposal 
explained that this would provide additional assurance that financial 
data processing by third parties or others is subject to the CFPA and 
its prohibition on unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts or practices.
Comments
    The CFPB received approximately 11,120 public comments on the 
proposal during the comment period.\25\ Approximately 290 of these 
comments were unique, detailed comment letters. These commenters 
included data providers and third parties, including banks of different 
sizes, credit unions, a variety of nondepository entities, and data 
aggregators; \26\ trade associations representing a diverse array of 
interests; standard-setting bodies; \27\ consumer advocates; \28\ 
researchers and a variety of research institutes; members of Congress; 
government agencies; law firms; and individual commenters not 
affiliated with or representing any organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See https://www.regulations.gov/docket/CFPB-2023-0052/comments.
    \26\ Depending on the context and its activities, a particular 
entity might be a data provider, a third party, a data aggregator 
acting on behalf of a third party, or some combination thereof. The 
description of commenters in this final rule attempts to 
characterize the commenter based on the expressed or inferred 
capacity in which they provided feedback.
    \27\ As used in this final rule, this term refers to nonprofit 
entities that described themselves principally as an industry 
standard-setting body. The CFPB recognizes, however, that a variety 
of other commenters might be involved in standard-setting 
activities.
    \28\ As used in this final rule, this term refers broadly to all 
types of consumer advocates, including privacy advocates and 
community groups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the CFPB considered comments received after the 
comment period closed via approximately 60 ex parte submissions and 
meetings.\29\ These materials, including all ex parte submissions and 
summaries of ex parte meetings, will be available on the public docket 
for this rulemaking.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, Policy on Ex Parte 
Presentations in Rulemaking Proceedings, 82 FR 18687 (Apr. 21, 
2017).
    \30\ See https://www.regulations.gov/docket/CFPB-2023-0052.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 90843]]

    The remaining comments included some duplicate submissions (i.e., 
letters with the same content from the same commenter submitted through 
multiple channels, or letters with the same content submitted by 
multiple people on behalf of the same commenting organization) as well 
as comments that appeared to be part of several comment submission 
campaigns. Such comment campaigns typically advocated for or against 
particular provisions in the proposal and urged additional changes. 
These comments were considered by the CFPB along with all other 
comments received, including any additional remarks included in 
otherwise identical comment letters.
    The CFPB received comments on nearly all aspects of the proposed 
rule, and on its analyses of the proposed rule's impacts. Relevant 
information received via comment letters, as well as ex parte 
submissions, is discussed below in subsequent parts of this document, 
as applicable. The CFPB considered all the comments it received 
regarding the proposal, made certain modifications, and is adopting the 
final rule as described in part IV below.

C. 2024 Industry Standard-Setting Final Rule

    In June 2024, the CFPB finalized the proposal in part, establishing 
attributes a standard-setting body must possess to receive CFPB 
recognition for purposes of issuing standards that provide some indicia 
of compliance with certain substantive provisions of part 1033, as well 
as establishing the application process for CFPB recognition. See 89 FR 
49084 (June 11, 2024) (Industry Standard-Setting Final Rule).

III. Legal Authority

A. CFPA Section 1033

    CFPA section 1033(a) and (b) provide that, subject to rules 
prescribed by the CFPB, a covered person shall make available to a 
consumer, upon request, information in the control or possession of the 
covered person concerning the consumer financial product or service 
that the consumer obtained from such covered person, subject to certain 
exceptions. The information must be made available in an electronic 
form usable by consumers. Section 1002 of the CFPA defines certain 
terms used in CFPA section 1033, including defining ``consumer'' as 
``an individual or an agent, trustee, or representative acting on 
behalf of an individual.'' In light of these purposes and objectives of 
section 1033 and the CFPA generally, the CFPB interprets CFPA section 
1033 as authority to establish a framework that ensures data providers 
readily make available to consumers and third parties acting on behalf 
of consumers (including authorized third parties offering competing 
products and services), upon request, covered data in a usable 
electronic form. In addition, CFPA section 1033(d) provides that the 
CFPB, by rule, shall prescribe standards applicable to covered persons 
to promote the development and use of standardized formats for 
information, including through the use of machine-readable files, to be 
made available to consumers under this section. Moreover, the CFPB 
interprets CFPA section 1033 as authority to specify procedures to 
ensure third parties are truly acting on behalf of consumers when 
accessing covered data. These procedures help ensure the market for 
consumer-authorized data operates fairly, transparently, and 
competitively.
    CFPA section 1033(c) provides that nothing in CFPA section 1033 
shall be construed to impose any duty on a covered person to maintain 
or keep any information about a consumer. Further, CFPA section 1033(e) 
requires that the CFPB consult with the prudential regulators and the 
FTC to ensure, to the extent appropriate, that certain objectives are 
met.

B. CFPA Sections 1022(b) and 1024(b)(7)

    CFPA section 1022(b)(1) authorizes the CFPB to, among other things, 
prescribe rules ``as may be necessary or appropriate to enable the 
[CFPB] to administer and carry out the purposes and objectives of the 
Federal consumer financial laws, and to prevent evasions thereof.'' The 
CFPA is a Federal consumer financial law.\31\ Accordingly, in issuing 
the proposed rule, the CFPB is exercising its authority under CFPA 
section 1022(b) to prescribe rules that carry out the purposes and 
objectives of the CFPA and to prevent evasions thereof. This would 
include, at least in part, provisions to require covered persons or 
service providers to establish and maintain reasonable policies and 
procedures, such as those to create and maintain records that 
demonstrate compliance with the rule after the applicable compliance 
date. CFPA section 1024(b)(7) also grants the CFPB authority to impose 
record retention requirements on CFPB-supervised nondepository covered 
persons ``for the purposes of facilitating supervision of such persons 
and assessing and detecting risks to consumers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See 12 U.S.C. 5481(14) (defining ``Federal consumer 
financial law'' to include the provisions of the CFPA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. CFPA Section 1002

    Certain provisions of the CFPA, such as its prohibition on unfair, 
deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, apply in connection with a 
consumer financial product or service. Under CFPA section 1002(5), this 
is generally defined as a financial product or service that is 
``offered or provided for use by consumers primarily for personal, 
family, or household purposes.'' In turn, CFPA section 1002(15) defines 
a financial product or service by reference to a number of categories. 
In addition, CFPA section 1002(15)(A)(xi)(II) authorizes the CFPB to 
issue a regulation to define as a financial product or service, for 
purposes of the CFPA, ``such other financial product or service'' that 
the CFPB finds is ``permissible for a bank or for a financial holding 
company to offer or to provide under any provision of a Federal law or 
regulation applicable to a bank or a financial holding company, and 
has, or likely will have, a material impact on consumers.'' The CFPB is 
exercising this authority in finalizing Sec.  1001.2(b).

IV. Discussion of the Final Rule

12 CFR Part 1033

General Comments Received on the Proposal
    High-level and general comments received on the CFPB's proposed 
rule to implement CFPA section 1033 are discussed here, followed by a 
discussion of comments specifically addressing the rulemaking process, 
liability among commercial entities, and overlaps with other consumer 
financial laws and CFPB rulemaking activity. Comments received on 
specific aspects of the CFPB's proposed rule, as well as regarding the 
CFPB's legal authority to adopt specific aspects of the rule, and the 
anticipated effects of particular provisions, are discussed in turn in 
the sections that follow in this part IV. Comments regarding the CFPB's 
analysis of impacts are discussed in parts VI through VIII.
1. High-Level and General Comments on the Proposal
General Support
    Most commenters, including data providers, third parties, data 
aggregators, trade associations, consumer advocates, and others, 
supported the overall goals of the rulemaking articulated in the 
proposal. Many commenters supported implementing the data access rights 
in CFPA section 1033 to include direct

[[Page 90844]]

consumer and third party access that would allow consumers and 
authorized third parties to access data more reliably and securely 
compared to current market practices. A research institute commenter 
stated that the proposal would assure a robust regime of third party 
access with respect to its coverage, while building in flexibility to 
allow the regime to evolve along with changes in market standards and 
technology.
    Many third party commenters, consumer advocates, and others stated 
consumer-authorized access would help consumers, including those 
underserved by their existing account providers, manage their financial 
lives and access new and competing products and services. A community 
bank commenter indicated the proposal would help ensure community banks 
remain vital in the areas they serve.
    Many commenters, including third parties, data providers, consumer 
advocates, and others also stated that the rule would generally 
increase competition overall by reducing barriers to entry and other 
impediments for market participants to compete with incumbent 
depository and nondepository institutions. For example, a credit union 
commenter stated that the standardization of third party data access 
would allow smaller institutions to rely on the same technology as 
larger institutions, decreasing incumbents' market power. Other 
commenters believed that the proposal's approach to standard-setting 
would reduce the influence of incumbents and increase consumers' 
bargaining power and access to services offered by different providers. 
Some data provider commenters stated that the proposal would support 
competition by limiting third party secondary use of consumer-
authorized data and ensuring third parties are subject to a basic 
standard for data security.
    Some commenters specifically indicated that the rule would have 
competitive benefits in certain markets. For example, a trade 
association for certain third parties stated that open banking can spur 
competition in the payments sector, lowering transaction costs and 
mitigating the durable market power of certain incumbents. The 
commenter noted that the proposal's prohibition on fees for third party 
access would allow cost-sensitive merchants to accept lower-cost 
payments.
    Commenters also emphasized the benefits of informed consent and 
consumer control when sharing data with third parties and the need for 
consumer protection in consumer-authorized access. Many data providers, 
third parties, consumer advocates, and others also supported the rule's 
efforts to protect consumers by enabling them to control their data 
effectively. For example, a consumer advocate expressed general support 
for the proposal, characterizing it as a strong, protective rule that 
would ensure that consumers can share account data free of misuse or 
exploitation. This commenter also stated the consumer protections in 
the rule should serve as a model for how to safeguard consumer control 
and privacy when a consumer grants permission to a business to use 
their data.
General Opposition
    While many commenters supported the proposal overall, some data 
providers, third parties, and others were critical of some or all 
aspects of the proposal. A number of data provider commenters, 
particularly credit unions and community banks, expressed opposition to 
the proposal as a whole, and questioned whether a rule was necessary or 
appropriate to achieve the CFPB's stated goals, including with respect 
to competition, and questioned the CFPB's legal authority to issue 
rules for open banking.
    In addition, a wide variety of commenters, including data providers 
and third parties, raised what they described as significant concerns 
about the costs of the proposal, often with respect to specific 
provisions. In particular, data providers were most concerned with 
potential compliance costs related to the Fair Credit Reporting Act 
(FCRA), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., the costs of providing access to third 
parties in compliance with the rule as proposed (including the 
prohibition on charging fees for access), the costs associated with 
managing third party risk, and how liability would be allocated for 
third party breaches or fraud. A number of entities--mainly though not 
exclusively third parties that use consumer-authorized data--asserted 
that the proposed third party limitation on collection, use, and 
retention of covered data would foundationally undermine the rule and 
restrict consumers' ability to share their data. A large number of 
smaller financial institutions and related trade associations expressed 
concern that the proposal would disadvantage small entities.
    A variety of commenters suggested that the proposal would undermine 
competition in various ways. Some commenters, including research 
institutes, third parties, and data providers asserted that the 
proposal's coverage was too narrow to support competition. For example, 
a data aggregator stated that the proposal's limited coverage of 
products and data types would reduce third party innovation, and a 
research institute stated that the limited coverage of data providers 
would give them an incentive to block data access outside of the rule's 
coverage, further limiting third party access to data. A research 
institute and a data provider commenter stated that the proposal would 
undermine competition by limiting the role of industry standard-setting 
bodies that are not recognized by the CFPB.
    Some credit union and community bank commenters stated that the 
rule as a whole would unfairly force data providers to maintain data 
access systems and bear other costs, effectively subsidizing 
competition from third parties, particularly as a result of the 
proposed fee prohibition for third party data access. Several of these 
commenters noted that this result would benefit nondepositories that 
are excluded from the data provider definition and would come at the 
expense of depository institutions, which would disproportionately 
disadvantage credit unions and community banks. Data providers 
expressed concern that they would unfairly bear the burden of managing 
liability risks presented by nondepository third parties that are not 
subject to the same regulatory oversight. Several data provider 
commenters expressed concern that third parties would use consumer data 
to harm data providers, such as by reverse-engineering sensitive 
commercial information. A data aggregator commenter stated that the 
proposal would consolidate the market of data aggregators by forcing 
data providers to grant access to third parties, ultimately stifling 
innovation.
    Credit union and community bank commenters also expressed concern 
that the proposal would disadvantage them relative to larger and better 
resourced data providers. These commenters stated that the proposal 
would impose disproportionate and unsustainable costs on smaller data 
providers and would force some to exit the market or otherwise 
consolidate the banking industry, reducing consumer access to products 
and services. A number of commenters stated that smaller depository 
institutions that rely on core service providers would be less able to 
manage the costs of a prohibition on fees for third party access. One 
data provider commenter stated that the proposed rule would force less-
resourced data providers to adhere to standards established by the 
largest data providers, which would reduce their profitability. Another 
data provider

[[Page 90845]]

commenter stated that forcing some data providers to make data 
available to third parties while exempting community banks would put 
community banks at a competitive disadvantage relative to large data 
providers.
    As discussed in part IV.D.4, a variety of third party commenters 
expressed concern that the proposed limitation on collection, use, and 
retention of covered data would restrict innovation by third parties or 
limit the ability of new entrants and providers of new products and 
services to provide innovative products. For example, a trade 
association representing nondepository institutions argued that the 
final rule should allow broader use of covered data for advertising 
purposes to support competition, while numerous commenters, including 
research institutes and others, expressed concern about the limitation 
on use of de-identified data, including for research purposes. Other 
commenters argued the proposed limitation on collection, use, and 
retention of covered data would not only disadvantage third parties 
relative to other market participants, but also reduce the 
competitiveness of the U.S. overall. Some commenters also asserted that 
the proposed third party obligations, including the limit on 
collection, use, and retention of covered data, would put third parties 
at a significant competitive disadvantage to data providers that are 
unrestricted by the limitations. For example, some commenters stated 
that the proposed limitation on a third party's duration of 
authorization would disadvantage third parties engaged in payments 
relative to incumbents that do not rely on consumer-authorized data. 
Some third party commenters also stated that the proposal's allowance 
of tokenized account numbers would result in anticompetitive conduct by 
data providers.
    Several commenters argued that the market for consumer-authorized 
data is already competitive and that a rulemaking to increase 
competition among data providers, intermediaries, and third parties, 
would be unnecessary or would yield few benefits. As evidence of the 
level of competition in the U.S., commenters noted that third parties 
access (or attempt to access) consumer-authorized data more frequently 
in the U.S. than in other countries; noted that the market is already 
moving toward the use of APIs and away from screen scraping; and 
asserted that the market for data provider products and services 
(including for credit card and deposit accounts) is robust and provides 
high levels of customer service. Some commenters representing community 
banks asserted that consumers are not demanding third party data 
access, but that community banks would provide it if consumers did 
demand it.
    Some commenters, particularly community banks and credit unions 
stated that the proposal would not meet its objectives related to 
privacy and security for various reasons. Some commenters suggested 
this would be the case because of a lack of regular examinations of 
third parties. Others took issue more generally with the obligation to 
make data available to third parties, which they said would open the 
door to fraud and security breaches of personally identifiable data. 
Many data providers expressed concern that they would be obligated to 
ensure the data security of third parties.
    Some data provider and third party commenters also raised concerns 
about the CFPB's legal authority for parts of the proposal. Some 
commenters also suggested that the CFPB consider consumer data sharing 
rules in other jurisdictions in drafting the final rule, but without 
clear consensus on what did or did not work in other jurisdictions.
Response to Comments
    The CFPB agrees with the general comments about implementing CFPA 
section 1033 to ensure data providers not only provide data access to 
consumers directly but also provide access for consumers' authorized 
third party representatives. As discussed in part III and part IV.C.2, 
this aspect of the rule is consistent with the plain language and 
objectives of section 1033 and the CFPA more broadly. In addition, the 
CFPB agrees that this aspect of the rule will increase opportunities 
for both depository and nondepository institutions to provide better 
products or services to consumers and enable consumers to manage their 
financial lives using data under the control or possession of data 
providers.
    The CFPB also agrees with commenters that supported the general 
approach to third party access. As discussed in part IV.D, the third 
party access provisions of the final rule are designed to ensure, 
consistent with carrying out the objectives of CFPA section 1033, that 
consumers provide informed consent to third parties that access covered 
data pursuant to the final rule's framework, that consumers retain 
control over third parties' access, and that third parties act on 
behalf of consumers when collecting, using, and retaining covered data.
    With respect to comments opposing the proposal, including due to 
concerns about the impact on competition, the final rule carries out 
Congress' objectives in CFPA section 1033(a) and the mandate at CFPA 
section 1033(d) to prescribe standards to promote the development and 
use of standardized formats. As discussed further in part IV.D.1, 
Congress intended for consumers to be able to authorize third parties 
to access data under the statute on their behalf. Congress also 
directed the CFPB to prescribe standards to promote the development and 
use of standardized formats of information. The final rule carries out 
those objectives. For more discussion on the costs and benefits of the 
final rule, including impacts on competition, see parts VI and VII 
below.
    The final rule will help ensure that markets for consumer financial 
products and services are competitive overall. Consumers will have even 
greater ability to take advantage of the many products or services 
already available, and data providers will have stronger incentives to 
enhance their products and services to retain their customers. The CFPB 
disagrees with arguments that consumers are not interested in third 
party data access, and notes that many consumers of institutions both 
large and small share data with third parties. But even where data 
providers already make data available voluntarily, the CFPB has 
determined the rulemaking is needed to address the challenges that have 
arisen in open banking, as discussed in the proposal. See 88 FR 74796, 
74798-99 (Oct. 31, 2023).
    As discussed further in part IV.A.3, the CFPB has determined it is 
appropriate to implement the product coverage of CFPA section 1033 in a 
staged manner. With respect to concerns about data provider incentives 
to block screen scraping, those incentives exist independent of the 
final rule. As safer forms of data access become functional, the CFPB 
expects that parties will move away from screen scraping. However, as 
discussed further in part IV.C.3, data providers must exercise caution 
when blocking screen scraping outside the rule's coverage.
    With respect to the impact on the market for data aggregation, in 
the current market, and in the absence of implementing CFPA section 
1033, open banking activity has already consolidated to data 
aggregators for the reasons discussed in the proposal. See 88 FR 74796, 
74798-99 (Oct. 31, 2023). The impact of the rule on the value of 
intermediation arises from carrying out congressional intent to make 
consumer data more portable, including as a result of the 
interoperability objective inherent in CFPA section 1033(d)'s mandate 
to

[[Page 90846]]

promote standardized formats. Additionally, whether an authorized third 
party relies on an aggregator is a business decision of the authorized 
third party. The final rule will reduce costs for authorized third 
parties generally, including the cost of using an aggregator, and 
should make it easier to access data directly from data providers over 
time, due to various aspects of the final rule including the 
requirements related to standardized formats, the prohibition on fees, 
and the rule's recognition of industry standard-setting as an important 
aspect of an effective and efficient open banking system.
    With respect to concerns about competitive disadvantages for 
smaller data providers, the CFPB is not finalizing the rule with 
respect to depository institutions under the coverage threshold at 
Sec.  1033.111(d) and is providing smaller data providers that are 
covered additional time to comply, as discussed in part IV.A.5. The 
rule also presents opportunities for small data providers to better 
compete by offering products and services to a wider range of 
consumers. One commenter expressed concern that excluding smaller data 
providers would disadvantage small data providers relative to large 
data providers that continued to have the obligation, but for which 
they would not offer developer interfaces. The CFPB disagrees with this 
premise and notes that many large data providers are already offering 
developer interfaces and that small data providers can participate in 
open banking voluntarily.
    Some commenters expressed concern that the rule would force small 
data providers to rely on standards developed by large data providers 
with more resources. During the SBREFA process, the CFPB received 
feedback that standardization can reduce costs for small entities, 
including data providers and third parties.\32\ Consistent with the 
mandate in CFPA section 1033(d), the final rule includes various 
provisions to promote the development and use of standardized data 
formats. Further, consensus standards (discussed in part IV.A.6 below) 
that can serve as indicia of compliance with various rule provisions, 
must be issued by a recognized standard setter that demonstrates 
balance, as discussed further in the Industry Standard-Setting Final 
Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See, e.g., SBREFA Panel Report at 28, 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to commenters that expressed concerns about 
obligations for authorized third parties, including the limitation on 
third party collection, use, and retention of covered data, the CFPB 
notes that those provisions ensure that consumers provide express 
informed consent to third parties that access covered data, that 
consumers retain control over third parties' access, and that third 
parties act on behalf of consumers when accessing covered data. The 
CFPB's responses to commenter concerns related to the third party 
authorization procedures and obligations are discussed below in part 
IV.D. Further, and as discussed in part IV.D.4, the CFPB disagrees with 
commenters' assertions that the rule would competitively disadvantage 
third parties relative to data providers. Data providers and third 
parties may use data that result from direct consumer relationships 
without adhering to the third party authorization procedures and 
obligations, and the final rule also does not treat covered data 
providers differently than other third parties when they act as 
authorized third parties themselves. With respect to comments about the 
competitiveness of the U.S. generally, the purpose of this rule is to 
ensure that third parties are acting on behalf of consumers. With 
respect to comments about third party oversight and data security, see 
the discussion below in part IV.3, IV.5, IV.C.4-5, and IV.D.4.
2. Comments Regarding the Rulemaking Process
    The CFPB issued the proposed rule on its website on October 19, 
2023, and published it in the Federal Register on October 31, 2023, 
with comments due by December 29, 2023. Some commenters asserted that 
the CFPB's comment period should have been longer. One commenter 
disagreed and suggested that requests to extend the comment period were 
pretextual efforts to delay implementation.
    The Administrative Procedure Act does not specify a particular 
period of time for a public comment period,\33\ and the comment period 
in this rulemaking was sufficient. This is illustrated by, among other 
things, the many detailed comments the CFPB received from stakeholders 
of all types, sizes, and viewpoints. Additionally, as noted above in 
part II, the CFPB has engaged in extensive public outreach since 2016 
related to consumer-authorized data sharing, including through an RFI, 
an ANPR, and the SBREFA process. The CFPB also has taken various steps 
in response to the specific concerns raised with respect to the 
substantive provisions of the proposal. In particular, as discussed in 
part IV.A.4, the CFPB has determined to not finalize the rule with 
respect to small depository institution data providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See 5 U.S.C. 553(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Comments Regarding Liability Among Commercial Entities
Comments Received
    Many commenters addressed the general topic of liability. A number 
of data provider commenters, academic researchers, and research 
institute commenters predicted that the final rule would increase the 
volume of sensitive financial data accessed by third parties, 
particularly sensitive information to initiate a payment (under 
proposed Sec.  1033.211(c)), which they viewed as increasing the risk 
of unauthorized transactions or other harms arising from the compromise 
of a data provider's or third party's information systems, such as the 
risk of inaccurate data transmission. A number of data provider 
commenters noted that consumers might seek to hold data providers 
responsible for damages, or that data providers would face increased 
costs related to reimbursing consumers for a third party having 
fraudulently induced the consumer's authorization to access covered 
data. These commenters expressed concern that this would subject data 
providers to losses arising from liability and other compliance 
obligations, such as costs due to Regulation E and Z error 
investigations, preventing monetary losses to accounts, seeking 
reimbursement from third parties, and safety and soundness standards. 
Commenters also noted other laws, including State laws, related to 
``fraud,'' ``negligence,'' ``privacy,'' ``identity theft,'' and ``data 
security,'' but did not otherwise identify sources of liability. 
Several commenters also raised questions about the applicability of the 
FCRA, which are described separately below in part IV.4.
    Many data provider commenters asserted that the proposal had not 
accounted for data providers' potential exposure to liability-related 
costs or ensured third parties had incentives to manage liability and 
otherwise demonstrate capacity to cover losses directly caused by third 
parties. Some of these commenters stated that the proposal had 
incorrectly assumed that liability could be allocated adequately 
through private agreements (including private payment network rules and 
bilateral contracts), the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), 15 
U.S.C. 1691 et seq., the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1601 et 
seq., and their implementing regulations. Commenters generally 
suggested the CFPB address liability by mandating a comprehensive 
approach to assigning liability or safe

[[Page 90847]]

harbors for data providers, clarifying the role of bilateral data 
access agreements to allocate liability, or take other steps to reduce 
harms that might create liability risk. By contrast, a trade 
association representing third parties and a data aggregator stated 
that the liability allocation under EFTA and TILA, combined with the 
third party data security and privacy obligations under the proposal, 
would be adequate to address liability concerns, although these 
commenters also expressed concern about relying on bilateral contracts 
to allocate liability. One commenter stated that liability should flow 
with the data, but that data providers and authorized third parties 
should be permitted to allocate liability amongst themselves by 
contract.
    In particular, a data provider commenter expressed criticisms of 
private network rules, stating that they do not give data providers 
sufficient ability to recoup losses among multiple third parties, some 
of which might not be financially viable or be downstream of the 
authorized third party and outside of contractual privity; they do not 
provide for a clear liability framework or sufficient fraud or data 
security protections for higher-risk ``pay-by-bank'' transactions; and 
they do not fully address the costs of error investigations or other 
customer service particularly where consumers expect data providers to 
make them whole following a data breach.
    With respect to bilateral contracts, several data provider and 
third party commenters stated that they are costly to negotiate and 
enforce (including against third parties that might not be financially 
viable), would result in uneven liability allocations across the 
market, and would generally protect the interests of the largest data 
providers. Several third party commenters also expressed concern that 
they might include unnecessary terms based on an overbroad 
interpretation of third party risk management obligations or be used to 
deny access pretextually.
    Data provider commenters also asserted that third party compliance 
with GLBA Safeguards Framework, as contemplated under the proposal, 
would be insufficient to protect consumers or data providers from 
liability risk because third parties would lack incentives to manage 
their data security if they were not financially liable for their 
conduct, and because they are not subject to supervision. A consumer 
advocate commenter also stated that clear expectations for liability 
would provide third parties greater incentive to manage data security 
risks.
    To address these concerns, a wide range of data provider 
commenters, a trade association representing third parties, an academic 
researcher, and a consumer advocate recommended that the regulatory 
text include a comprehensive liability-allocation provision for any 
losses arising from the third party's misuse of a consumer's payment 
credentials to conduct a fraudulent transaction, losses arising from 
the unauthorized access of payment credentials due to a data breach, or 
other losses arising from harms occurring from data in that party's 
possession. Several data provider commenters and academic researcher 
commenters noted that other open banking regimes around the world take 
a similar approach. One trade association noted that, while liability 
is traditionally determined based on which party has possession of the 
data, the rule does not indicate that this is the case. Other data 
provider commenters, including a number of credit union commenters, 
recommended that the final rule establish a ``safe harbor'' for data 
providers required to make data available under the final rule that 
protects the data provider from claims from consumers and third 
parties. Some commenters presented different versions of such an 
approach, such as by conditioning the absence of liability on whether 
the data provider had actual knowledge of the third party's data 
security risk, or the third party making representations about its data 
security practices, or on the third party's possession of a 
certification or credential.
    While some data provider and third party commenters expressed 
concern with reliance on bilateral data access agreements to allocate 
liability, some of these data provider commenters stated that they 
could be used to address liability concerns. Several data provider 
commenters recommended that the final rule address liability by 
clarifying that data providers are not precluded from exercising 
discretion to comply with prudential safety and soundness obligations, 
including third party risk management expectations. Several of these 
commenters recommended that data providers be permitted to deny third 
parties, including data aggregators, access to a developer interface if 
they did not accept contractual terms related to liability, such as 
indemnification and insurance obligations. Several data provider 
commenters and related trade associations recommended that third 
parties be required to have or certify that they have adequate capital 
or insurance to cover losses. However, a data aggregator commenter 
stated that the rule should affirm the adequacy of the existing 
liability framework under EFTA and Regulation E and TILA and Regulation 
Z to help limit liability disputes during negotiations of bilateral 
data access agreements. Comments related to the role of such agreements 
in managing third party risk are discussed in greater detail in part 
IV.C.4 below.
    Data provider commenters also recommended that the rule address 
liability by subjecting third parties to additional data security 
obligations, such as the FFIEC information security handbook appliable 
to depository institutions (discussed further below in part IV.D) or 
CFPB supervision. A research institute commenter also supported 
clarifying the CFPB's intent to supervise third parties as a way to 
reduce concerns related to liability.
    A data provider commenter requested that the final rule clarify 
whether the data provider has any liability in the context of specific 
provisions of the proposal: (1) if a third party collects more 
information than is necessary to offer a specific product or service; 
and (2) if a data breach occurs because an authorized third party does 
not delete data after a consumer revokes its authorization or does not 
timely communicate the revocation to a data aggregator.
Response to Comments
    The CFPB has determined it would not be appropriate for this rule 
to impose a comprehensive approach to assigning liability among 
commercial entities or safe harbors from the requirements of EFTA and 
Regulation E or TILA and Regulation Z. The ability of payees to 
initiate electronic payments has existed for decades and the Regulation 
E concerns raised by commenters are not specific to CFPA section 1033. 
Although this rule facilitates sharing of payment initiation 
information with third parties so that they can initiate electronic 
payments, the rule does not require account write access or otherwise 
require payment initiation. Applicable payment authorization 
requirements continue to separately apply. As noted in the proposal, 
consumers have a statutory right under EFTA to resolve errors through 
their financial institution, while private network rules, contracts, 
and other laws address which payment market participant is ultimately 
liable for unauthorized transfers and other payment errors. As 
discussed further below, the U.S. payment system allows non-bank payees 
to initiate payments through their depository institution, and those 
partner depository institutions

[[Page 90848]]

also bear responsibility for who is allowed to access the payment 
networks.
    The CFPB is aware that it is common for non-bank payees, such as 
utility companies, charities, non-bank lenders, community 
organizations, and other billers, to initiate payments through their 
depository institution. The payee's depository institution, referred to 
as an originating depository financial institution in the context of 
ACH payments, is responsible for ensuring that any payments it 
initiates on the payee's behalf are correct and authorized, as they are 
subject to private network rules and safety and soundness requirements 
related to risk management.\34\ Data providers that are Regulation E 
financial institutions will continue to have error resolution 
obligations for transfers initiated using payment information shared 
under this rule, just as they do today when a consumer shares 
information with a payee or a consumer's payment credentials are 
compromised, and can seek reimbursement from an originating depository 
financial institution according to private network rules, contracts, 
and commercial law. For example, although a consumer's financial 
institution is required to reimburse the consumer for an unauthorized 
transfer under Regulation E, ACH private network rules generally 
dictate that the receiving depository financial institution is entitled 
to reimbursement from the originating depository financial institution 
that initiated the unauthorized payment. Similarly, data providers that 
are Regulation Z credit card issuers will continue to have error 
resolution obligations under TILA. Commenters did not identify a 
plausible method through which the proposal would increase the risk of 
credit card fraud. The final rule does not require data providers to 
make available credit card payment information. For both Regulation E 
accounts and Regulation Z credit cards, because the final rule only 
requires data providers to share information and does not require that 
they allow third parties to initiate payments using that information, 
any costs arising from error investigations and the recoupment of 
losses by data providers are a function of how private network rules 
operate. The final rule does not impinge on such private arrangements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See, e.g., OCC Bulletin 2006-39, Automated Clearing House 
Activities: Risk Management Guidance (Sept. 1, 2006), https://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/bulletins/2006/bulletin-2006-39.html; 
NACHA Operating Rules Section 2.2: Warranties and Liabilities of 
Originating Depository Financial Institutions; NACHA Operating Rules 
Subsection 2.2.3 Liability for Breach of Warranty (``Each ODFI 
breaching any of the preceding warranties shall indemnify each RDFI, 
ACH Operator, and Association from and against any and all claim, 
demand, loss, liability, or expense, including attorney's fees and 
costs, that result directly or indirectly from the breach of 
warranty or the debiting or crediting of the entry to the Receiver's 
account. This indemnity includes, without limitation, any claim, 
demand, loss, liability, or expense based on the ground that the 
debiting of an entry to an account resulted, either directly or 
indirectly, in the return of one or more items or entries of the 
Receiver due to insufficient funds. This indemnity also includes, in 
the case of a Consumer Account, without limitation, any claim, 
demand, loss, liability, or expense based on the ground that the 
failure of the ODFI to comply with any provision of these rules 
resulted, either directly or indirectly, in the violation by an RDFI 
of the Federal Electronic Fund Transfer Act or Federal Reserve Board 
Regulation E.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters suggested that consumer-authorized data sharing may 
create risks to consumers and financial costs to financial institutions 
arising from an increased risk of unauthorized transactions and other 
errors, especially when data access relies on screen scraping. In 
implementing CFPA section 1033, the CFPB is finalizing a variety of 
measures to mitigate unauthorized transfer and privacy risks to data 
providers and consumers, including allowing data providers to share 
TANs; not allowing data providers to rely on credential-based screen 
scraping to satisfy their obligations under CFPA section 1033; 
clarifying that data providers can engage in reasonable risk management 
activities; implementing authorization procedures for third parties 
that would require they commit to data access, use, and retention 
limitations; implementing policies and procedures regarding data 
accuracy; and requiring compliance with the GLBA Safeguards Framework. 
These provisions are intended to drive market adoption of safer data 
sharing practices. With respect to commenters' suggestions to reduce 
costs associated with liability through data access agreements or other 
conditions for third parties attempting to access consumer data, see 
parts IV.C.4 and IV.D.4. With respect to the suggestion that authorized 
third parties certify to consumers as to capital adequacy or insurance, 
see part IV.D.1 for discussion of comments.
    Finally, the CFPB does not believe it would be appropriate to 
attempt to establish a comprehensive approach to addressing liability 
(including through safe harbors) for laws it does not administer, such 
as State laws dealing with data security, privacy, identity theft, 
negligence, and fraud. The extent of data providers' liability for 
failure to comply with their obligations under this final rule is 
provided for under the CFPA.
    The CFPB also notes that commenters did not provide legal analysis 
or factual evidence about the likelihood that data providers would 
actually incur legal liability under these laws when consumers request, 
or Federal law requires, they make data available to a third party that 
subsequently misuses or mishandles the data. While some commenters 
stated that consumers would be likely to seek to recoup from the data 
provider losses arising from third party conduct, it is not clear to 
what extent that is likely to occur when losses arise from a third 
party to which the consumer requested the data provider make 
information available. To the contrary, a trade association commenter 
indicated that liability typically resides with the party that 
experiences a data breach. Nor did commenters provide evidence of the 
extent to which data providers actually defend against claims of such 
liability, despite data providers' long-standing practice of consumer-
authorized third party data sharing. To the extent there are complex 
factual or legal questions about a data provider's liability for 
directly contributing to consumer harm, commenters did not identify 
particular scenarios, and the CFPB does not believe it would be 
appropriate to make statements about a data provider's liability in 
this final rule. As an additional and independent reason, commenters 
did not identify the legal authority the CFPB could rely on to modify 
laws it does not administer.
4. Comments Regarding Potential Overlaps With Other Consumer Financial 
Laws and CFPB Rulemaking Activity
Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E
Comments
    In addition to the liability comments discussed above, some data 
provider commenters specifically commented on the applicability of EFTA 
and Regulation E. Some data provider commenters asked the CFPB to apply 
Regulation E error investigation requirements to all third parties. A 
few data provider commenters stated that the CFPB should clarify that 
data aggregators are Regulation E service providers, asserting that the 
data aggregator is in the best position to control for risks related to 
the transactions it permits a consumer to conduct through its system. A 
trade association representing data providers asked the CFPB to clarify 
that a data access agreement between an aggregator and data provider is 
an ``agreement'' for purposes of the Regulation E service

[[Page 90849]]

provider provision. A data provider commenter asked the CFPB to clarify 
that, if a third party is a Regulation E financial institution, such as 
a digital wallet provider that obtains permissioned data access under 
CFPA section 1033, it would have error resolution responsibilities for 
payments initiated using data obtained from the developer interface and 
that such digital wallet providers should be required to provide their 
contact information to consumers.
Response to Comments
    The CFPB has determined that it is not appropriate or practical to 
deny consumers their statutory right to resolve errors through their 
financial institution and this final rule does not change such rights 
under EFTA and Regulation E. The Regulation E definition of financial 
institution means a bank, savings association, credit union, or any 
other person that directly or indirectly holds an account belonging to 
a consumer, or that issues an access device and agrees with a consumer 
to provide electronic fund transfer services.\35\ The CFPB declines to 
expand the scope of the Regulation E service provider provision to data 
aggregators, because doing so would limit consumers' ability to resolve 
errors and unauthorized transactions through their account-holding 
financial institution. Whether a given entity is a service provider for 
a given electronic fund transfer will depend on the relationship 
between the entities involved in making that individual transfer, not 
whether the payee used payment credentials shared under this final rule 
to initiate the payment. Negating a consumer's statutory right to go to 
their financial institution to resolve errors also would result in an 
illogical and harmful error resolution regime. From the consumer's 
perspective, they may not know whether an error is related to data that 
was shared under CFPA section 1033. The CFPB is aware that some 
financial institutions attempted to have consumers enter into 
agreements to waive EFTA rights in situations where they shared account 
credentials or other information with a third party, even though such 
agreements violated the EFTA anti-waiver provision in 15 U.S.C. 
1693l.\36\ It was unclear at the time how exactly the depository 
institutions intended to enforce this waiver language. One concern was 
that it would be used to deny all Regulation E error resolutions rights 
to consumers who had shared any information with a data aggregator, 
even if the financial institution did not know whether the error was 
related to that shared information. It also would be burdensome and 
likely infeasible for the consumer to sort out when they should go to 
their financial institution for help versus a third party versus 
another entity for a transaction that they do not recognize.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 12 CFR 1005.2(i).
    \36\ See Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, Regulation E FAQs, Error 
Resolution: Unauthorized EFTs #8, https://www.consumerfinance.gov/compliance/compliance-resources/deposit-accounts-resources/electronic-fund-transfers/electronic-fund-transfers-faqs/ (last 
updated June 4, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Data providers and third parties that are Regulation E financial 
institutions--including digital wallet providers, person-to-person 
payment providers, entities that refer to themselves as neobanks, and 
traditional depository institutions--have and will continue to have 
error resolution obligations in the event of a data breach where stolen 
account or ACH credentials are used to initiate an unauthorized 
transfer from a consumer's account and the consumer provides proper 
notice. These error resolution obligations include requirements on the 
financial institution to provide consumers with the financial 
institution's contact information.
Fair Credit Reporting Act and Regulation V
    The proposal noted that a third party engaged in data aggregation 
activities could be a consumer reporting agency under the FCRA if it 
met the elements of the FCRA's definition of ``consumer reporting 
agency.''
Comments
    Some commenters addressed the applicability of the FCRA. Many data 
providers and data provider trade association commenters stated that 
the final rule should provide that data providers are not furnishers 
when they provide data pursuant to consumer authorization. These 
commenters asserted that the compliance burden of being a furnisher is 
significant and could overwhelm smaller financial institutions. They 
also argued that, unlike traditional furnishing, data providers sharing 
data under CFPA section 1033 are simply facilitating consumers' 
requests to access their data.
    Other commenters, primarily data aggregators, stated that data 
aggregators should not be considered consumer reporting agencies when 
they transfer data pursuant to consumer authorization. These commenters 
argued that consumer-authorized data sharing is different from the 
provision of consumer reports because consumers have control over the 
sharing of their data, because data aggregators act as mere conduits 
for transmission of the data, and because consumers have direct 
relationships with data aggregators. One data aggregator commenter 
predicted that if data aggregators could be consumer reporting 
agencies, then data providers that are FCRA-covered furnishers would 
deny access unless the aggregators agreed to data access agreements 
with terms related to indemnification for FCRA liability. A third party 
trade association commenter contended that data providers that are 
FCRA-covered furnishers could deny access to data aggregators in the 
absence of a data access agreement. Other commenters stated that 
treating data aggregators as consumer reporting agencies would result 
in unintended consequences. For example, a third party trade 
association commenter asserted that compliance with the FCRA could 
require data aggregators to access and retain more data than they do 
currently. And a data aggregator commenter stated that consumers might 
be confused if they attempt to correct the accuracy of any information 
transferred by a data aggregator, because data aggregators do not hold 
the underlying data; therefore, the data held by the data aggregator 
may differ from the versions held by the data provider and other third 
parties.
    Some commenters requested that the final rule exclude FCRA-covered 
entities and data from the rule's coverage. Several consumer reporting 
agency commenters and a consumer reporting agency trade association 
commenter asserted that consumer reporting agencies should be excluded 
from coverage because they are already subject to extensive regulation 
under the FCRA. A data aggregator commenter suggested that the CFPB 
rely on existing authorities and not impose new regulations on the 
collection, use, and retention of covered data where such collection, 
use, and retention may be addressed by other laws, such as the FCRA. 
And a consumer reporting agency commenter stated that consumer reports 
should be excluded from the definition of ``covered data'' because 
otherwise the limited purposes that authorize consumer reporting 
agencies to share consumer reports might conflict with the purposes for 
which consumers might authorize sharing of their covered data. The 
consumer reporting agency trade association commenter stated that the 
proposed limitations on use and retention of covered data might 
complicate FCRA compliance by entities offering products that rely on 
indefinite consumer authorization, including products that allow

[[Page 90850]]

consumers to self-report rental and utility payment information to 
their credit file to enhance their credit histories. Data aggregator 
commenters and a third party trade association commenter claimed that 
the FCRA's framework is complex and confusing when applied in the 
context of consumer-authorized data access. And a data aggregator 
commenter asserted that the proposed rule's consumer protections would 
be more appropriate for consumer-authorized data access than FCRA 
requirements.
    Several commenters raised questions about the intersection of the 
final rule and the FCRA, including the extent of overlap, duplication, 
or conflict between the final rule and the FCRA. These commenters asked 
for clarification on various specific questions, including: which 
activities would make a data provider an FCRA-covered furnisher; which 
use limitation standard applies if consumer-authorized data are subject 
to both the final rule and the FCRA; which activities would make a data 
aggregator a consumer reporting agency; whether data aggregators that 
are consumer reporting agencies would have to provide consumer reports 
to consumers at their request; how data aggregators that are consumer 
reporting agencies would comply with their FCRA dispute obligations if 
data providers are not FCRA-covered furnishers; how data aggregators 
that are consumer reporting agencies could maintain accurate consumer 
reports given the proposed limits on retention; which uses of covered 
data constitute permissible purposes under the FCRA; whether third 
parties can be both data aggregators under the final rule and consumer 
reporting agencies under the FCRA; whether financial institutions may 
combine disclosures and consent forms required by the final rule and 
the FCRA; whether specialty consumer reporting agencies may collect and 
retain consumer-authorized transaction data to comply with the FCRA; 
and whether information from de-identified consumer reports used for 
research purposes could also be covered data subject to the proposed 
restrictions on secondary use.
    Finally, some commenters stated that the CFPB should coordinate the 
FCRA and Personal Financial Data Rights rulemakings.\37\ A bank trade 
association and credit union trade association stated that until one of 
these rules had been finalized, they could not fully understand the 
impacts of one rule on the other. A data provider/third party trade 
association commenter suggested pausing the FCRA rulemaking until the 
Personal Financial Data Rights rulemaking is finalized to fully 
understand each rule's impact. A consumer reporting agency commenter, 
an industry trade association commenter, and a financial holding 
company commenter requested that the Personal Financial Data Rights 
final rule be issued before the FCRA proposed rule. The industry trade 
association commenter and financial holding company commenter asserted 
that concurrent rulemaking adversely impacts the public's ability to 
meaningfully comment on each proposal. A bank trade association 
commenter recommended postponing compliance with this final rule until 
after an FCRA rule is finalized, while a data aggregator commenter 
asked the CFPB to wait until after this rule is finalized to address 
the applicability of the FCRA to data aggregators. And a research 
institute commenter suggested that certain definitions, such as those 
relating to data aggregators and FCRA-covered furnishers, be harmonized 
between the final rule and the FCRA rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ The CFPB assumes commenters were contemplating an FCRA 
rulemaking with a scope similar to what was described in the CFPB's 
FCRA 2023 SBREFA Outline, which included proposals under 
consideration related to data broker activities and medical debt 
information. See Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, Small Business Advisory 
Review Panel for Consumer Reporting Rulemaking Outline of Proposals 
and Alternatives Under Consideration (Sept. 15, 2023), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_consumer-reporting-rule-sbrefa_outline-of-proposals.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response to Comments
    As an initial matter, the CFPB has determined that this final rule 
does not affect a person's obligations or duties under the FCRA. The 
final rule does not alter the types of data, parties, or permissible 
purposes covered by the FCRA. Because the final rule does not change 
substantive requirements under the FCRA or Regulation V, the commenters 
that raised questions about the intersection of the FCRA with CFPA 
section 1033 and how to comply with FCRA obligations and duties must 
look to the FCRA and Regulation V to determine how to comply with a 
particular FCRA requirement. For example, whether a third party, such 
as a data aggregator, is a consumer reporting agency under the FCRA 
depends on whether the third party falls within the definition of 
``consumer reporting agency'' in the FCRA.\38\ Similarly, whether a 
certain use of covered data constitutes a permissible purpose is 
determined by looking to the FCRA.\39\ This is true with respect to any 
question about what a person subject to this final rule must do to 
comply with the FCRA and Regulation V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See 15 U.S.C. 1681a(f) (defining consumer reporting 
agency).
    \39\ See 15 U.S.C. 1681b (identifying permissible purposes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFPB also has determined that the requirements of this final 
rule are not inconsistent with the FCRA or Regulation V. Some 
commenters noted that certain uses of data might be permitted by the 
FCRA but not authorized by the Personal Financial Data Rights rule as 
proposed. Compliance with this final rule does not, however, require a 
person to violate the FCRA or Regulation V. Therefore, a person that is 
subject to this final rule and the FCRA/Regulation V must comply with 
both. This is no different than for any person who is subject to 
several overlapping laws and regulations. For example, a third party 
may have to contemporaneously provide disclosures relating to 
Regulation E accounts, Regulation Z credit cards, and the GLBA and 
Regulation P. When applicable, a third party subject to all these laws 
must satisfy their respective requirements. Complying with CFPA section 
1033 and the final rule is no different. Thus, it is unnecessary to 
exclude certain parties, such as consumer reporting agencies, or FCRA-
covered uses from the rule's coverage.
    The CFPB also received comments about whether data providers are 
furnishers under the FCRA. The CFPB would not consider data providers 
under this final rule to be furnishers solely by virtue of permitting 
data access pursuant to an authorization that is consistent with the 
final rule. This is the case even assuming data are provided to a data 
aggregator that qualifies as a consumer reporting agency. In these 
unique circumstances, the consumer, and not the data provider, would be 
the party that is furnishing data to the consumer reporting agency. 
This is the case because of a particular combination of circumstances, 
including that the data are only shared with the aggregator after the 
data provider is asked to do so by the consumer; the data are shared 
pursuant to a written authorization designed to ensure that the 
consumer has meaningful control of the uses of the specific data that 
are shared; the data are further protected by use restrictions to 
ensure they continue to be used for the benefit of the consumer; and 
the data provider is not exercising its own agency or control or 
benefiting from the arrangement, but rather is simply

[[Page 90851]]

facilitating the consumer's decision to furnish.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See, e.g., 12 CFR 1022.41(c)(3) (Under the Furnisher Rule 
in Regulation V, when the consumer furnishes information to a CRA 
about themselves, the consumer is not considered a ``furnisher.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFPB received comments seeking clarification about whether data 
aggregators are consumer reporting agencies under the FCRA. However, 
this final rule does not cause data aggregators to incur legal 
liability under the FCRA that they would not otherwise assume through 
their ordinary operations. Addressing this topic is not necessary to 
finalize this rulemaking because whether a data aggregator is a 
consumer reporting agency under the FCRA requires a fact-specific 
inquiry of considerations beyond the scope of this final rule. Data 
aggregators may engage in a variety of activities and have multiple 
business models, and whether a data aggregator is a consumer reporting 
agency will depend on the satisfaction of all components of the 
statutory definition in the FCRA--a determination not affected by this 
final rule.
    The CFPB disagrees that the sequencing of the Personal Financial 
Data Rights and FCRA rulemakings adversely impacted the public's 
ability to comment on the Personal Financial Data Rights proposed rule. 
After issuing the Personal Financial Data Rights proposed rule, the 
CFPB published a proposed rule regarding medical information under the 
FCRA. See 89 FR 51682 (June 18, 2024) (Medical Debt Proposed Rule). The 
Medical Debt Proposed Rule would remove a regulatory exception in 
Regulation V from the limitation in the FCRA on creditors obtaining or 
using information on medical debts for credit eligibility 
determinations and would limit the circumstances under which consumer 
reporting agencies are permitted to furnish consumer reports containing 
medical debt information to creditors when making credit eligibility 
determinations. The CFPB is also engaged in a rulemaking focused on 
data broker activities (Data Broker Rulemaking).
    With respect to the sequencing of the Personal Financial Data 
Rights and the Medical Debt and Data Broker rulemakings, the fact that 
this final rule does not change what a person would need to do to 
comply with its existing obligations under the FCRA means that 
completing the Medical Debt and Data Broker rulemakings is not 
necessary to finalize this rulemaking. The CFPB will consider feedback 
received in the course of the Medical Debt and Data Broker rulemakings, 
evaluate the further steps it may take in those rulemakings, and will 
respond to comments as appropriate.
    The CFPB acknowledges that the potential applicability of the FCRA 
to uses of covered data under the final rule presents operational 
complexity, and the CFPB is taking steps to coordinate the final rule 
with the ongoing FCRA rulemakings. As described in part IV.A.5, the 
CFPB is substantially revising the compliance deadlines for data 
providers under the final rule. The CFPB has determined that the 
extension of the compliance deadlines strikes the appropriate balance 
between carrying out the objectives of the statute while also providing 
an entity covered by the final rule with more time to work through 
these operational challenges and understand the entity's compliance 
obligations under the final rule in light of the FCRA.
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and Regulation P
    A few commenters addressed the general applicability of the GLBA 
and Regulation P, 12 CFR part 1016. Several commenters asked for 
clarity about how financial institutions should comply when data are 
subject to both the GLBA and the Personal Financial Data Rights rule. 
For example, a bank commenter and a bank trade association commenter 
asked which use limitation standard would apply. A third party 
commenter suggested that the CFPB rely on existing authorities and not 
impose new regulations on the collection, use, and retention of covered 
data where the collection, use, and retention of the data may be 
addressed by other laws, including the GLBA. A research institute 
commenter asserted that consumers might be confused if they received 
multiple disclosures.
Response to Comments
    The CFPB has determined that the final rule does not affect a 
person's obligations or duties under the GLBA. In addition, the CFPB 
has determined that the final rule is not inconsistent with the GLBA or 
Regulation P. As with the FCRA, some commenters sought clarification 
about how a person would comply when data are subject to the GLBA and 
CFPA section 1033, including whether the limitations on collection, 
use, and retention of data under the final rule would apply where such 
limitations are not imposed under the GLBA and Regulation P. While the 
GLBA and Regulation P may permit some uses of information that may not 
be permitted under the final rule, compliance with the final rule does 
not require a person to violate the GLBA or Regulation P. Moreover, the 
CFPB expects that a person covered by the final rule is experienced 
with managing the respective requirements of applicable State and 
Federal laws, including the implementation of overlapping disclosure 
requirements.
    Other commenters raised broader issues. For example, a data 
aggregator commenter suggested that the CFPB should encourage Congress 
to amend GLBA or pass a Federal data privacy law. This commenter also 
suggested that the CFPB undertake a GLBA rulemaking. These comments are 
outside the scope of this rulemaking.
    The CFPB declines to rely on existing legal frameworks, including 
the GLBA and Regulation P, to regulate consumer privacy. The purposes 
and objectives of CFPA section 1033, which are described in part III.A, 
differ in certain respects from the purposes and objectives of other 
laws (such as the GLBA). The requirements set forth in the final rule 
are better suited to the open banking context, and could not be 
substituted by applying existing authorities to consumer-authorized 
access of covered data.
    Comments addressing the GLBA in relation to a specific proposed 
provision, such as comments recommending the final rule adopt 
Regulation P's privacy protections for third parties, are addressed in 
part IV.C and D.4.
CFPA Section 1034(c)
    Section 1034(c) of the CFPA generally requires large financial 
institutions to comply with consumer requests for information 
concerning their accounts in a timely manner, subject to certain 
statutory exceptions.\41\ In October 2023, prior to the proposal, the 
CFPB issued an advisory opinion on CFPA section 1034(c) that interprets 
this provision for the purpose of highlighting the obligations it 
imposes upon large financial institutions.\42\ One commenter asked the 
CFPB to clarify the extent to which the scope of data covered by CFPA 
section 1033 and by the CFPA section 1034(c) advisory opinion overlap, 
and how that may impact obligations for data providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Specifically, CFPA section 1034(c) applies to insured 
depository institutions (including credit unions) that offer or 
provide consumer financial products or services and that have total 
assets of more than $10 billion, as well as their affiliates.
    \42\ Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, Consumer Information Requests 
to Large Banks and Credit Unions, 88 FR 71279 (Oct. 16, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CFPA sections 1033(b) and 1034(c)(2) both generally apply to 
``information in the control or possession'' of a covered

[[Page 90852]]

person ``concerning the consumer financial product or service that the 
consumer obtained from such covered person.'' However, the statutes 
differ in several respects, including the types of covered persons 
subject to, the exceptions to information covered by, and the form in 
which information must be provided pursuant to the statutes.
    The statutes impose separate obligations on large depository 
institutions (including credit unions), and how the statutes impact 
institutions' obligations will depend on the facts.\43\ As noted in the 
advisory opinion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ As noted in the advisory opinion, the CFPB does not 
interpret section 1034(c) to preempt or otherwise supersede the 
requirements of other Federal or State laws and regulations designed 
to protect privacy and data security, including, for example, any 
restrictions that may be imposed in the CFPB's upcoming rule 
implementing section 1033. See 88 FR 71279, 71279 n.27 (Oct. 16, 
2023).

    [S]ection 1033 governs consumer authorized third-party access to 
data made available in electronic form in connection with third-
party provision of other products or services--including for 
example, the provision of a potentially competing account offering. 
This is why, for example, section 1033 is limited to data available 
in the normal course, and why section 1033 requires data to be `made 
available . . . in electronic form.'\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See id. at 71279 n.23.

    See also part IV.C regarding a comparison between CFPA sections 
1034(c) and 1033 with respect to the final rule's prohibition on fees 
for data access.
5. Other Comments
    A number of commenters sought information on how the CFPB will 
conduct oversight of third parties. Commenters stated that many 
authorized third parties are outside the CFPB's enforcement or 
supervisory jurisdiction, and asserted that data aggregators pose 
relatively greater risks to consumers than authorized third parties. 
Some commenters also asked whether the CFPB would consider complaints 
from industry participants when setting supervision and enforcement 
priorities, and asked that the CFPB encourage consumers to submit 
complaints to its consumer complaint program.\45\ Several commenters 
sought information on how the CFPB would provide guidance after the 
final rule is issued. In addition, a consumer advocate recommended that 
the CFPB engage in a consumer education campaign to inform consumers of 
their rights under the rule. The commenter explained that improved 
consumer understanding of consumer-authorized data sharing would 
increase consumer confidence in sharing data and protect them from bad 
actors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See generally Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, Submit a 
complaint about a financial product or service, https://www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint/ (last visited Oct. 17, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SBA Advocacy requested that the CFPB determine whether the final 
rule is necessary in light of current State law (citing the California 
Consumer Privacy Act as an example) and whether the final rule 
conflicts with State laws. Other commenters questioned whether the CFPB 
had taken proper account of international open banking regimes in 
developing the proposal.
    With respect to questions about how the CFPB intends to enforce and 
supervise for the requirements that apply to third parties, Sec.  
1001.2(b) of the final rule provides additional assurance that 
financial data processing by third parties, among others, is subject to 
the CFPA. This includes enforcement and, where appropriate, 
supervision, by the CFPB. In addition, the CFPB and FTC coordinate law 
enforcement activities regarding the offering or provision of consumer 
financial products and services by covered persons within the FTC's 
jurisdiction under the FTC Act, including conducting joint 
investigations where appropriate, to minimize duplication of efforts 
and burden on FTC-covered industry participants. This may include 
coordination on enforcement activities regarding the CFPA prohibition 
on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices and the FTC 
Safeguards Rule. The CFPB also coordinates with State attorneys general 
and State regulators. With respect to questions about the role of 
consumer complaints in establishing supervision and enforcement 
priorities, the CFPB prioritizes supervisory and enforcement activity 
on the basis of risk, taking into account, among other factors, the 
size of each entity, the volume of its transactions involving consumer 
financial products or services, the size and risk presented by the 
markets in which it is a participant, the extent of relevant State 
oversight, and any field and market information that the CFPB has on 
the entity. Such field and market information can include, for example, 
information from complaints and any other information the CFPB has 
about risks to consumers and to markets posed by a particular entity. 
In response to comments advocating for CFPB supervision of third 
parties, including data aggregators, the CFPB's supervisory authority 
is defined by the CFPA. The CFPB agrees that supervision of data 
aggregators is important. Supervisory examinations over one or more 
data aggregators, including larger participants in the consumer 
reporting market, are scheduled or ongoing,\46\ and the CFPB will 
continue to engage in this supervision as necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See Supervisory Highlights, Issue 30, Summer 2023, 88 FR 
52131, 52142 (Aug. 7, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to guidance after the final rule is issued, the CFPB 
plans to make available a range of resources to assist with effective 
implementation of the rule, including a small entity compliance guide. 
The CFPB also has a regulatory support program that can provide 
assistance. With respect to comments about improving consumer awareness 
of their rights under this rule, the CFPB notes that the consumer 
protections in this rule are intended to ensure that consumers can 
access their own data and can authorize access by third parties that 
are acting on their behalf. For more discussion of consumer awareness 
of third party access, see part IV.D below. The CFPB intends to further 
consider how to increase consumer awareness of and confidence in 
authorized third party data access.
    The CFPB has considered State law and international legal 
frameworks to inform the final rule's approach to data providers' 
obligations to make data available upon request and third parties' 
obligations to act on behalf of consumers in order to access such data. 
Several States impose obligations on businesses to make information 
available to consumers in a portable, structured format, where 
technologically feasible.\47\ Several States also impose privacy 
obligations on businesses. However, these State laws differ in terms of 
their scope and substantive requirements. In addition, a number of 
States include exemptions for businesses or data covered by certain 
Federal consumer financial laws, like the GLBA.\48\ The CFPB believes 
it is appropriate to carry out congressional intent to issue Federal 
regulations pursuant to CFPA section 1033, including the 
interoperability objectives of CFPA section 1033(d), by issuing 
requirements applicable nationwide to promote safe, secure, reliable, 
and competitive data access. The CFPB is not aware of conflicts between 
State law and the final rule. See parts VI and VII for further 
discussion of the impacts of State law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See, e.g., Cal. Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 section 
1798.130(a)(3)(B)(i)-(iii).
    \48\ See, e.g., id. section 1798.145(e). See also SBREFA Outline 
at 46 n.50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of this rulemaking, the CFPB has considered international 
open banking models, as discussed in the proposed rule and further 
below. The CFPB's authority and policy approach

[[Page 90853]]

in this final rule are not identical to those of other jurisdictions. 
In particular, as discussed in part IV.3, IV.C.2, and elsewhere in part 
IV, the final rule does not require data providers to initiate 
payments, unlike some other open banking regimes. The final rule 
instead implements CFPA section 1033 with respect to a data provider's 
obligation to make available covered data to consumers and third 
parties authorized to access such data on their behalf. The CFPB has 
taken account of the experience of international jurisdictions in 
developing the final rule generally and as discussed in part IV.C.2 
with respect to the prohibition on fees for third party access, part 
IV.C.3 with respect to commercially reasonable performance standards, 
and the final rule's approach to screen scraping, as discussed in part 
IV.D.1. The CFPB believes any differences between the approach of this 
final rule and those of other jurisdictions are appropriate in light of 
the particular market and regulatory frameworks applicable to the U.S. 
See parts VI and VII for further discussion of international 
jurisdictions.

A. Subpart A--General

1. Overview
    Subpart A of the final rule establishes the coverage and 
terminology necessary to implement CFPA section 1033 for this rule, 
beginning with Sec.  1033.101, which describes the authority, purpose, 
and organization of the regulation in part 1033. Subpart A defines the 
coverage of the final rule, sets forth tiered compliance dates, defines 
terms appearing throughout the regulatory text, and, as finalized in 
the Industry Standard-Setting Final Rule, sets forth criteria for 
recognized standard setters.
2. Authority, Purpose, and Organization (Sec.  1033.101)
    In the proposed rule, the CFPB proposed Sec.  1033.101(a) to 
describe the CFPB's legal authority to issue the rule for the purposes 
described in proposed Sec.  1033.101(b). Proposed Sec.  1033.101(c) 
described the organization of the proposed rule within part 1033. The 
Industry Standard-Setting Final Rule finalized the language in proposed 
Sec.  1033.101(a) and a more limited version of proposed Sec.  
1033.101(b) and (c), to reflect the limited purpose and organization of 
the Industry Standard-Setting Final Rule. The CFPB did not receive 
comment on the proposed rule's proposed language in Sec.  1033.101.
    In this final rule, the CFPB is not making changes to the legal 
authority language in Sec.  1033.101(a) that was finalized by the 
Industry Standard-Setting Final Rule. The CFPB is amending the language 
finalized by the Industry Standard-Setting Final Rule at Sec.  
1033.101(b) and (c), as originally proposed by the proposed rule, to 
reflect the purpose and organization of this final rule. Final Sec.  
1033.101(c) also refers to the appendix containing standard setter 
recognition procedures that was finalized as part of the Industry 
Standard-Setting Final Rule. Other than with respect to Sec.  1033.101, 
the final rule published in this Federal Register document does not 
amend any of the provisions of the Industry Standard-Setting Final 
Rule. The regulatory text published in this Federal Register document 
restates the regulatory text finalized in the Industry Standard-Setting 
Final Rule (other than with respect to Sec.  1033.101) for clarity and 
ease of reading.
3. Coverage of Data Providers (Sec.  1033.111(a) Through (c))
Proposal
    Section 1033(a) applies to ``covered persons,'' as defined in the 
CFPA. In the proposal, the CFPB explained its intent to implement the 
broad coverage of CFPA section 1033 through this and supplemental 
rulemaking. For this first rule to implement coverage and other 
substantive provisions of CFPA section 1033(a), the CFPB proposed to 
define a subset of covered persons that would be required to make data 
available with respect to certain consumer financial products or 
services: Regulation E asset accounts, Regulation Z credit cards, and 
products or services that facilitate payments from a Regulation E 
account or a Regulation Z credit card. The CFPB explained that the last 
of these categories would clarify that the proposed rule would cover 
all consumer-facing entities involved in facilitating Regulation E 
account and Regulation Z credit card transactions.
    In the proposed rule, the CFPB discussed how payment data from 
these products and services support common beneficial consumer use 
cases today, including transaction-based underwriting and payment 
initiation. Specifically, the CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.111(b) to 
define covered consumer financial product or service to mean (1) a 
Regulation E account, a defined term that would have the same meaning 
as defined in 12 CFR 1005.2(b); (2) a Regulation Z credit card, a 
defined term that would have the same meaning as defined in 12 CFR 
1026.2(a)(15)(i); and (3) the facilitation of payments from a 
Regulation E account or Regulation Z credit card. The CFPB proposed in 
Sec.  1033.111(c) to define data provider to mean a covered person, as 
defined in 12 U.S.C. 5481(6), that is (1) a Regulation E financial 
institution, as defined in 12 CFR 1005.2(i); (2) a Regulation Z card 
issuer, as defined in 12 CFR 1026.2(a)(7); or (3) any other person that 
controls or possesses information concerning a covered consumer 
financial product or service the consumer obtained from that person. In 
example 1 to Sec.  1033.111(c), the CFPB proposed to provide an example 
that a digital wallet provider is a data provider. The CFPB requested 
comment on the proposed definitions.
    The proposed rule also explained that the CFPB was considering 
adding EBT-related data to the final rule, or reaching EBT cards in a 
subsequent rulemaking. State and local administered needs-tested 
benefits are exempt from EFTA coverage by statute. When distributed 
electronically, needs-based benefits established under State or local 
law or administered by a State or local agency are primarily issued to 
consumers via EBT cards. EBT-related data are mainly accessed directly 
by the consumer through private entities that have contracted with 
State or local governments that administer programs for Federal 
Government agencies. The CFPB requested comment on whether the most 
appropriate way to solve issues related to EBT data accessed directly 
by the consumer is through section 1033 of the CFPA, and whether it 
should do so as part of this first rulemaking related to payments data 
or a subsequent rule under CFPA section 1033. The CFPB also requested 
comment on third party practices related to consumer-authorized EBT 
data, and the benefits and drawbacks of enabling third party access to 
EBT-related data, including with respect to data security.
Comments
    Many commenters, including third parties and consumer advocates, 
stated that the proposed coverage was too narrow. Advocated additions 
included all covered persons and financial products and services under 
the CFPA, all Regulation Z creditors (such as mortgage, auto, and 
payday lenders), payroll providers, holders of tax records, electronic 
bill presentment providers, investment products, retirement accounts, 
and small business lenders. Some third party commenters asserted that 
data providers will otherwise restrict or fail to offer access to these 
data. One bank data provider commenter stated that the narrow scope of 
coverage could cause consumer confusion. A non-bank data provider that 
also acts as a third party stated that

[[Page 90854]]

coverage should be broader because much or all of the covered data are 
already made available by banks today.
    Conversely, many data provider commenters requested narrower 
coverage, and that the CFPB clarify the rule's applicability, 
particularly with regard to pass-through payments and payment 
facilitation providers. Some commenters asked for specific exclusions 
for products or entities that they asserted are excluded from the 
CFPB's authority under the CFPA, such as corporate credit cards and 
merchants. Several third party and trade association commenters asked 
the CFPB to clarify that the rule does not cover other entities that 
initiate payments on the payee's behalf, such as embedded payment 
service providers that provide payment processing services exclusively 
for merchants, third party marketplaces operated prominently in the 
name of their affiliate company, and loan servicers. One non-bank data 
provider that also acts as a third party asked the CFPB to exclude 
online marketplaces and ride sharing apps. Two data provider trade 
associations asked the CFPB to exclude inactive or closed accounts.
    Two trade associations commenting on the CFPB's TILA interpretive 
rule regarding credit products marketed as BNPL,\49\ along with a 
provider of BNPL products, stated that the Personal Financial Data 
Rights rule should not apply to BNPL providers because they lacked 
notice that such providers are card issuers under Regulation Z and that 
the proposal did not adequately account for the impact on BNPL 
providers. A third party trade association supported coverage of BNPL 
providers as data providers, explaining in a comment on the CFPB's TILA 
interpretative rule that it supports the consumer right to share their 
balance and transaction information for any and all of their credit 
accounts. A few bank data provider trade associations commenting on the 
TILA interpretive rule recommended that the CFPB clarify that nonbank 
BNPL providers are held to the same standards as banks with regard to 
consumer protections generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Truth in Lending (Regulation Z); Use of Digital User 
Accounts To Access Buy Now, Pay Later Loans, 89 FR 47068 (May 31, 
2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regards to pass-through payments, bank data providers, a large 
nondepository data provider, and trades representing bank and 
nondepository data providers stated that data related to those products 
would be duplicative, introduce errors, provide limited consumer 
benefit relative to the increased burden on digital wallet providers, 
and conflict with their belief that the account-holding bank should 
control access to that data. One data provider trade association 
asserted that data providers should only be permitted to share data 
that is unique to them. The commenter stated that banks cannot conduct 
due diligence on the authorized third party that is requesting data 
access through the digital wallet provider, and this could lead to 
consumer confusion and other risks. The commenter asserted that these 
digital wallets do not possess data pertaining to a consumer financial 
product or service that the consumer obtained from the data provider. 
Some bank data provider commenters cited security and liability 
concerns about allowing pass-through payment providers to share data 
with third parties, rather than requiring the third parties to go to 
the underlying bank.
    A few commenters stated that the proposal was unclear as to whether 
any entity that controls or possesses covered data would have 
obligations under the rule, even if a consumer did not obtain a covered 
consumer financial product or service from the data provider and even 
if the data do not concern a covered consumer financial product or 
service. A few trade associations and other commenters asserted that 
the CFPB needed to clarify whether point of sale terminal providers and 
other payment service providers are covered under Sec.  1033.111(c). 
One bank trade association asked the CFPB to clarify that the 
obligation to make available covered data would not apply to consumers 
who are domiciled outside of the U.S., stating that without this 
clarification foreign requirements for data protection and privacy will 
be triggered, impacting data handling and protection that vary widely 
across countries.
    The CFPB received many comments from individual consumers, consumer 
groups, other nonprofit organizations, third parties, and Members of 
Congress in support of covering EBT providers in this stage of the 
rulemaking. Their reasons were similar to those raised during the 
SBREFA process, including how consumers would benefit from increased 
access to their EBT data and how such access could help identify fraud. 
Some of these commenters also asserted that excluding EBT providers 
from this rulemaking could worsen existing issues related to data 
access and service. A few commenters supported a subsequent rulemaking 
to cover EBT providers if they are not covered under this rule.
    Some commenters, including industry trade associations and a Member 
of Congress, cautioned against including EBT providers in this or any 
future rulemaking. Although these commenters raised concerns the CFPB 
considered in the proposed rule, like the potential for fraud to 
increase and the lack of EFTA protections, some commenters also 
asserted that the CFPB is not the right agency to address EBT data 
access. These commenters asserted that Congress specifically excluded 
EBT from being regulated as demand deposit accounts and instead largely 
granted authority to regulate EBT to USDA. A payments trade association 
commenter cautioned that agencies that administer EBT will not have 
contractual relationships with entities involved with third party 
access and therefore these entities will not need to comply with 
certain restrictions put in place by the governing agencies.
Final Rule
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing Sec.  
1033.111(a) through (c) as proposed, with some clarifying changes to 
the definition of covered consumer financial product or service in 
Sec.  1033.111(b)(3). This facilitation of payments prong in Sec.  
1033.111(b)(3) is finalized to include facilitation of payments from a 
Regulation E account or Regulation Z credit card, excluding products or 
services that merely facilitate first party payments. For purposes of 
part 1033, a first party payment is a transfer initiated by the payee 
or an agent acting on behalf of the underlying payee. First party 
payments include payments initiated by loan servicers.
    As in the proposal, Sec.  1033.111(c) defines data provider to mean 
a covered person, as defined in 12 U.S.C. 5481(6), that is: (1) A 
financial institution, as defined in Regulation E, 12 CFR 1005.2(i); 
(2) A card issuer, as defined in Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.2(a)(7); or 
(3) Any other person that controls or possesses information concerning 
a covered consumer financial product or service that the consumer 
obtained from that person. Example 1 to paragraph (c) states that a 
digital wallet provider is a data provider.
    Payment data from these products and services support common 
beneficial consumer use cases today, including transaction-based 
underwriting, payments, deposit account switching, and comparison 
shopping for bank and credit card accounts. Data from checking 
accounts, savings accounts, and other Regulation E accounts allow a 
consumer or third party to view a consumer's income, expenses, fees, 
and spending. Digital wallet providers hold similar valuable data that 
can provide a complete understanding of a consumer's

[[Page 90855]]

finances. Today, a digital wallet can initiate payments from multiple 
credit cards, prepaid accounts, and checking accounts. A digital wallet 
can facilitate payments from accounts that the digital wallet provider 
offers through depository institution partners, or from linked accounts 
issued by other institutions (sometimes referred to as pass-through 
payments). Regulation Z credit cards are increasingly used as payment 
devices for everyday expenses, and credit card transaction data have in 
some cases become interchangeable with Regulation E account transaction 
data. Given the foreign applicability provisions of Regulation E and 
Regulation Z, covered consumer financial products and services in this 
rule are limited to products and services obtained by consumers who 
reside in the U.S. See Regulation E comment 3(a)-3 and Regulation Z 
comment 1(c)-1 for a discussion of foreign applicability.
    Covering Regulation E accounts, Regulation Z credit cards, and 
payment facilitation products and services leverage existing 
infrastructure for consumer-authorized data sharing, thus facilitating 
implementation. Data providers generally share these covered data on 
consumer interfaces today, and some share covered data with third 
parties. Given how consumers' payment data are commonly shared and can 
be used to access consumer funds or track household spending, it is 
appropriate to prioritize these data for greater protection under this 
rule. As discussed in part IV.C and D, the CFPB is also finalizing a 
number of measures to foster a safe and secure data access framework.
    In addition, consumers benefit from being able to permission access 
to digital wallet pass-through data and the marginal burden on digital 
wallet providers is generally limited. Digital wallet providers and 
entities that refer to themselves as neobanks generally qualify as 
Regulation E financial institutions; some also may be Regulation Z card 
issuers. Digital wallet providers that facilitate pass-through payments 
typically also provide a funds-holding asset account or credit card, so 
would already be subject to the requirements of this rule, including 
the requirement to maintain interfaces under Sec.  1033.301. The few 
digital wallet providers who do not yet offer these products in 
conjunction with their pass-through products tend to be very large, 
sophisticated technology companies that commonly access and use data as 
third parties. Although digital wallet providers today typically 
qualify as Regulation E financial institutions under Sec.  
1033.111(c)(1), including Sec.  1033.111(c)(3) provides clarity that 
all digital wallet providers are data providers and ensures coverage as 
payment products evolve. This provision makes clear that the rule 
covers consumer-facing entities involved in facilitating Regulation E 
account and Regulation Z credit card transactions, except, as discussed 
below, products or services that merely facilitate first party 
payments. Given that digital wallet providers--including pass-through 
providers--typically are Regulation E financial institutions, the 
marginal compliance burden of including the payment facilitation prong 
is limited.
    Moreover, the potential consumer benefit is clear. Digital wallets 
are ubiquitous today, with both remote and point of sale acceptance. 
Some companies that originated as non-financial providers, such as 
search engines, social media companies, and retail merchants, are 
steadily offering asset accounts and credit cards themselves--sometimes 
leveraging data they have obtained from depository institutions for 
underwriting or other purposes. As consumers increasingly connect 
multiple financial products to these non-bank providers, and these 
providers increasingly offer asset accounts and credit cards in 
conjunction with other services, non-bank providers may control or 
possess different or more robust covered data than the underlying 
depository institution. Consumers may also find it more convenient to 
permission access through the digital wallet provider or other payment 
facilitation provider, and may expect to be able to do so. Accordingly, 
requiring digital wallet data providers to make available data for both 
pass through and non-pass through accounts may best align the rule with 
consumer expectations, ease sharing for consumers who connect multiple 
payment methods to their digital wallets or otherwise frequently use 
their digital wallets, and provide consumers with access to more robust 
payment transaction data. The CFPB agrees with commenters that pass-
through data providers should not be required to make available 
information to initiate payment to or from a Regulation E account under 
Sec.  1033.211(c); changes to the covered data provision are discussed 
below in connection with subpart B.
    The CFPB is clarifying the definition of covered consumer financial 
product or service in Sec.  1033.111(b)(3) to exclude situations where 
an entity is solely facilitating first party payments, such as a 
merchant or mortgage loan servicer initiating a payment from the 
consumer's account to itself. First party payments are distinct from 
payment facilitation products. Accordingly, the CFPB is finalizing 
Sec.  1033.111(b)(3) with language to explicitly exclude products or 
services that merely facilitate first party payments. For purposes of 
this definition, a first party payment is a transfer initiated by the 
payee or an agent on behalf of the underlying payee. First party 
payments include payments initiated by a loan servicer.
    Situations where an entity is merely initiating a payment to itself 
for a product or service it provided to the consumer would not be 
enough to qualify as a covered consumer financial product or service. 
For example, a mortgage servicer that merely initiates a payment to 
fulfill the consumer's mortgage obligation would not qualify as 
facilitation of payments under Sec.  1033.111(b)(3), as the mortgage 
servicer is initiating a payment to itself or is otherwise acting an 
agent to the underlying mortgage holder. Similarly, an online merchant 
initiating a payment to itself for goods it sold directly to the 
consumer, or a utility company initiating payment to satisfy a 
consumer's electric bill, would not qualify as facilitation of payments 
under Sec.  1033.111(b)(3). However, some first party payments continue 
to fall within the definition of covered consumer financial product or 
service, such as situations where the data provider is initiating a 
transfer to itself in conjunction with a product that facilitates 
payments to other payees, or the data provider is otherwise providing a 
Regulation E or Regulation Z account. For example, Sec.  1033.111(b) 
includes a digital wallet provider initiating a transfer from an 
external bank account to the consumer's digital wallet held by that 
same provider, a digital wallet provider initiating a pass through 
transfer from the consumer's Regulation E or Regulation Z account to 
another payee that participates in the debit or credit card network, 
and a credit card provider initiating a credit card payment from the 
consumer's external bank account to itself.
    As stated in Sec.  1033.201(a)(1), a data provider's obligation to 
make available data is limited to covered data in the data provider's 
control or possession concerning a covered consumer financial product 
or service that the consumer obtained from the data provider, in an 
electronic form usable by consumers and authorized third parties. For 
clarity, the CFPB is adding language to Sec.  1033.111(a) to reiterate 
that a data provider's obligations are limited to covered data 
concerning a covered consumer financial product or

[[Page 90856]]

service that the consumer obtained from the data provider.
    With regard to excluding products that are not subject to the 
CFPB's authority, any such exclusions would be superfluous, potentially 
confusing, and create risk that they would be misused to undermine 
coverage of payment facilitation products that do fall within the 
CFPB's authority. The Sec.  1033.111(b) definition of covered consumer 
financial product or service is expressly limited to a consumer 
financial product or service as defined in 12 U.S.C. 5481(5). The CFPB 
has decided not to add exclusions, such as an exclusion for online 
marketplaces that are not otherwise subject to the CFPB's authority, 
because that may create detrimental loopholes for products that also 
provide a payment facilitation or other Regulation E access device 
function. For example, an online marketplace may involve payments to 
the data provider for products or services sold by that same data 
provider, but also facilitate payments to other merchants.
    The CFPB intends to implement CFPA section 1033 with respect to 
other covered persons and consumer financial products or services 
through future rulemaking. The CFPB declines to expand the scope of 
covered data and consumer financial products and services in this final 
rule. Prioritizing Regulation E accounts, Regulation Z credit cards, 
and payment facilitation products and services advances competition 
goals across a broader range of markets while addressing pressing 
consumer use cases and risks. The CFPB also has considered that the 
marginal risks to consumers of including these covered consumer 
financial products and services is limited by Regulation E and 
Regulation Z error protections applying to all the products covered by 
this final rule; in addition, most (if not all) such covered data are 
shared with third parties to some extent today. The CFPB has considered 
that EBT cards are exempt from EFTA coverage by statute, but that 
pursuant to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, the USDA has 
been directed to engage in a rulemaking and issue guidance on EBT card 
security practices. The Spring 2024 Unified Agenda shows that this USDA 
rulemaking is in the proposed rulemaking stage, indicating that 
completion of a final rule remains some period away.
    In order to determine coverage, entities need to determine whether 
they control or possess covered data concerning a covered consumer 
financial product or service that the consumer obtained from that 
entity, and whether they otherwise meet the definition of data provider 
in Sec.  1033.111(c). This coverage determination is the same for all 
entities, including those that in providing BNPL products may qualify 
as card issuers under Regulation Z. BNPL providers had sufficient 
notice of their potential inclusion in the rule because they received 
notice that the CFPB proposed to cover Regulation Z card issuers and 
credit cards under CFPA section 1033.
4. Coverage Threshold for Depository Institution Data Providers (Sec.  
1033.111(d))
Proposal
    In Sec.  1033.111(d), the CFPB proposed to exclude from the 
requirements of this rule data providers that are depository 
institutions without a consumer interface. The CFPB noted that such 
institutions tend to be very small, may not have resources to support 
or maintain online or mobile banking systems, and may use a 
relationship banking model that provides a more personalized 
relationship with their customers. The CFPB also proposed to limit the 
exclusion to depository institutions, preliminarily determining that 
the complicating factors that exist for depository institutions are 
less likely to exist for nondepository institutions. The proposed rule 
also noted that nondepository institution data providers within the 
scope of the proposed rule tend to use business models built on the 
ability to innovate using technology and to move quickly to implement 
technological solutions. The CFPB sought comment on various issues, 
including whether different or additional criteria, such as an 
institution's asset size or activity level, should be taken into 
consideration when determining what depository institutions would be 
covered by the rule.
Comments Received
    Though a few commenters stated that all institutions should be 
required to comply with the rule, the vast majority of those who 
commented on this provision stated that some institutions should not. 
Many credit union, bank, and credit union and bank trade associations 
commenters stated that the proposed exemption was too limited. Many of 
these commenters also stated that coverage should be based on asset 
size, instead of the presence of a consumer interface, and suggested 
thresholds ranging from $850 million to $10 billion in total assets. 
Others stated that number of deposit accounts or customers should be 
relevant to coverage, or that depository institutions under a certain 
size should be able to ``opt out'' of the rule's requirements. A few 
credit union trade association commenters and one credit union 
commenter stated that there should be tiered exemptions where different 
tiers of depository institutions would not need to comply with various 
requirements of the rule: data providers with no consumer interface 
should be completely excluded, depository institutions that meet the 
SBA definition of a small business should only be required to provide a 
consumer interface, and minimum technical specifications should not 
apply to developer interfaces of depository institutions holding less 
than $50 billion in assets.
    Several nondepository entity trade association commenters and one 
technology service provider commenter stated that nondepository 
institutions that do not have digital banking should be exempt from the 
rule. One nondepository institution trade association commenter stated 
that there are many nondepository institutions that do not have a 
consumer interface, including debt collectors.
    While one bank commenter stated that depository institutions that 
elect to eliminate their consumer interfaces after the rule's effective 
date should not remain subject to the rule, a nondepository entity 
trade association commenter stated that they should. One nondepository 
entity trade association commenter stated that depository institutions 
should be given a grace period to comply with the rule's requirements 
when establishing a consumer interface while another stated that they 
should not. Finally, SBA Advocacy stated that the CFPB should consider 
third party exemptions that will not compromise data security and 
privacy.
Final Rule
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing Sec.  
1033.111(d) with modifications. Unlike the proposed rule, final Sec.  
1033.111(d) bases coverage on a depository institution data provider's 
total assets, not on the presence of a consumer interface. As in the 
proposed rule, all nondepository institution data providers are covered 
by the rule.
    Final Sec.  1033.111(d) states that the requirements of subparts B 
and C do not apply to data providers defined under Sec.  1033.111(c)(1) 
through (3) that are depository institutions that hold total assets 
equal to or less than the SBA size standard for the data provider's 
appropriate NAICS code for commercial

[[Page 90857]]

banking, credit unions, savings institutions and other depository 
credit intermediation, or credit card issuing, as codified in 13 CFR 
121.201. The current size standard for all the relevant NAICS codes is 
$850 million. Section 1033.111(d) also states that, if at any point, a 
depository institution that held total assets greater than that SBA 
size standard as of the final rule's effective date, subsequently holds 
total assets below that amount, the requirements of subparts B and C 
continue to apply. Section 1033.111(d)(1) provides information on how 
to determine the SBA standard based on specific NAICS codes. Section 
1033.111(d)(2) explains that total assets held by a depository 
institution are determined by averaging the assets reported on its four 
preceding quarterly call report data submissions to the FFIEC or NCUA, 
as applicable, or its submissions to the appropriate oversight body to 
the extent it does not submit such reports to the FFIEC or NCUA. 
Relatedly, and as more fully discussed in the discussion of compliance 
dates, Sec.  1033.121(c) addresses how to determine compliance dates 
for depository institutions that hold total assets at or below the SBA 
size standard but that subsequently cross that threshold.
    Unlike the proposed rule, the final rule bases coverage on the 
total assets held by a depository institution data provider and 
provides those entities a reasonable amount of time to comply with the 
part's requirements upon reaching the coverage floor. Asset size is a 
more accurate proxy than the mere existence of a consumer interface to 
help approximate a depository institution's resources and ability to 
comply with the rule's requirements. An institution that may offer a 
basic consumer interface may nevertheless not possess the resources or 
technological sophistication to upgrade that interface and create a 
compliant developer interface. A depository institution's total asset 
size, however, provides information about an institution's size, 
sophistication, and relative resources to comply with the rule because 
an institution's size measured by assets will generally correlate with 
its resources. In addition, the CFPB does not have information to 
indicate that any depository institution data provider over the current 
$850 million size standard lacks a consumer interface.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ If there were hypothetically such depository institutions, 
their number would be very small and creating an exemption solely 
for such institutions would add complexity to the regulatory regime 
and not be proportionate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the final rule, to streamline compliance, the specified 
depository institution data providers are not subject to any 
requirement to make data available through an interface. However, most 
depository institution data providers with total assets at or below the 
current $850 million size standards already have some form of consumer 
interface, and the CFPB expects that such institutions will continue to 
provide their customers with that service. The CFPB also understands 
that many depository institution data providers with total assets at or 
below the current $850 million size standards make at least some 
covered data available to consumer-authorized third parties, and 
expects that such institutions will continue doing so, including by 
offering developer interfaces when the benefits of doing so are 
commensurate with the institution's resources.
    As with the proposed rule, the final rule covers all nondepository 
institution data providers. Though a few commenters stated that 
nondepository institution data providers without consumer interfaces 
should not be covered by the rule's requirements, they did not offer 
grounds to rebut the proposed rule's determination that nondepository 
institution data providers lack the same complicating factors that 
exist for their depository institution counterparts. Nondepository 
institution data providers within the scope of the final rule tend to 
use business models built on the ability to innovate with respect to 
technology and move quickly to implement technological changes and 
solutions.
    As explained, the final rule does not cover depository institution 
data providers that hold total assets below the SBA size standard for 
the specific NAICS code that encompasses each depository institution 
data provider subject to this rule. The size standard for each of the 
named NAICS codes, currently $850 million, is re-evaluated by the SBA 
at least once every five years. In theory, the size standards of the 
named NAICS codes could diverge during that re-evaluation. The CFPB has 
determined that, given the historical standards, the likelihood of that 
occurring is minimal.
    The CFPB believes the SBA size standard is an appropriate threshold 
to determine depository institution data provider coverage at this 
time. Several credit union trade associations and a trade association 
of community banks stated that an $850 million threshold would address 
concerns about the costs of providing data access to third parties 
under the terms of the rule. In particular, a credit union trade 
association believed such a threshold would be appropriate to address 
concerns about the ability of smaller credit unions to remain 
competitive, noting that those below the threshold might discontinue 
services if they had to comply with the rule. As discussed further in 
part VI.E.1, many community banks, credit unions, and trade 
associations commented that they expect the costs for small depository 
institutions of providing required data access to be much higher than 
those estimated by the CFPB in the proposal. Though they did not 
provide additional data or information that would allow the CFPB to 
precisely update the cost estimates, the CFPB acknowledges that small 
depository institutions might face additional challenges in 
implementing the rule at this time. The CFPB believes that the SBA size 
standard is an appropriate metric to ensure the rule does not unduly 
burden entities that are not dominant in their field and may have 
difficulty competing under the rule without sacrificing products or 
services.
    At least one bank trade association commenter recommended generally 
that the coverage threshold be $10 billion in total assets, although 
the commenter stated that if the threshold is not set at $10 billion, 
then an asset threshold of $850 million would be appropriate.\51\ This 
commenter did not provide reasoning for this position, and based on 
other comments received, the CFPB believes depository institutions with 
assets above the SBA size standard in the final rule will not face the 
same types of constraints as those below. For example, a credit union 
trade association recommended that credit unions with assets between 
$850 million and $50 billion should be subject to the data provider 
requirements of the rule, with the exception of minimum technical 
performance requirements. As discussed in part IV.C.3, the CFPB has 
made the minimum response rate requirement in Sec.  1033.311(c) more 
flexible relative to the proposal and has lengthened the compliance 
timelines for all data providers. Further, not covering depository 
institutions with total assets of $10 billion and under would not cover 
a large share of total accounts, at approximately 31 percent of covered 
accounts. In contrast, setting the threshold at depository institutions 
with more than $850 million in total assets

[[Page 90858]]

excludes approximately 10 percent of covered accounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ The CFPB also received one comment from a software 
developer stating that, until an accreditation process has been 
developed, financial institutions with less than $10 billion in 
assets should not be required to comply with the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For now, in light of the reasons herein, the CFPB is not extending 
coverage to depository institutions with assets of $850 million or 
below. However, the CFPB anticipates that, as the process of building 
out systems capable of complying with the rule's requirements plays out 
and data providers, core providers, and other vendors work to 
streamline the resources and processes necessary to comply, the costs 
of compliance will go down, potentially making coverage for smaller 
depository institutions more appropriate. Relative to the alternative 
of a higher coverage threshold such as $10 billion in assets, covering 
a larger share of depository institution data providers with this 
rule--and, in particular, covering depository institution data 
providers that use the same vendors and core providers as smaller 
depository institutions--increases the likelihood that resources to 
facilitate third party access will be available for smaller depository 
institution data providers that seek to integrate them in the future. 
The CFPB will continue to monitor market conditions and engage with 
relevant vendors and other service providers to determine if changes to 
the rule's coverage are warranted.
    Section 1033.111(d)(2) states that a depository institution data 
provider's total assets are calculated by averaging its assets reported 
on its four preceding quarterly call report submissions to the FFIEC or 
NCUA, as applicable. Averaging total assets over a year provides a more 
accurate financial picture than using the total assets at one point in 
time. Additionally, the SBA calculates whether a specific institution 
meets its size standards by averaging the assets reported on its four 
quarterly financial statements for the preceding year. See 13 CFR 
121.201 n.8.
    Section 1033.111(d)(3) outlines the process by which a depository 
institution data provider determines total assets when there is a 
merger or acquisition where the surviving depository institution does 
not have four quarterly call report submissions. The surviving 
depository institution shall use the combined assets reported on the 
quarterly call report submissions by all predecessor depository 
institutions for quarterly assets prior to the merger. For quarterly 
assets after the merger or acquisition, quarterly assets shall be 
determined by using the assets reported on the quarterly call report 
submissions by the surviving depository institution. Total assets shall 
be determined by using the average of the quarterly assets for the four 
preceding quarters, whether the quarterly assets are the combined 
assets of the predecessor depository institutions or from the surviving 
depository institution. The rule does not include explicit instructions 
on how newly formed depository institution data providers with no 
predecessor depository institutions determine total assets. The 
regulatory text is clear that four quarterly call report submissions 
are necessary to determine total assets and thus, a newly formed 
depository institution data provider with no predecessor depository 
institutions will determine total assets once it has four of its 
quarterly call report submissions available to make that determination.
    As of the rule's effective date, depository institution data 
providers must determine their total assets by averaging their assets 
on the four preceding call report data submissions. If that total falls 
under the coverage threshold, the institution is not then subject to 
the rule's requirements, but it must continue to calculate total assets 
going forward based on the formula laid out in Sec.  1033.111(d)(2) to 
determine if its assets have increased enough such that it becomes 
covered by the rule.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Section 1033.121(c) describes compliance dates for 
depository institution data providers that hold total assets less 
than the SBA size standard as of the effective date but subsequently 
cross that threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule does not allow depository institution data providers 
to fall out of coverage because their asset holdings dip from above to 
below the threshold. Once a depository institution data provider has 
become capable of building and maintaining data access in accordance 
with the rule's requirements, it will need to meet the data access 
requirements of the rule; ongoing costs of compliance will be minimal, 
even if their total assets held have diminished.
5. Compliance Dates (Sec.  1033.121)
Proposal
    The CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.121 to stagger data provider 
compliance dates into four tiers, so as to ensure timely compliance 
based on asset size or revenue, depending on the type of data provider. 
A number of factors might affect how quickly a data provider could 
comply with the rule, including, for example, a data provider's size, 
relative technological sophistication, use of third party service 
providers to build and maintain software and hardware systems, and, in 
the case of many data providers, the existence of multiple legacy 
hardware and software systems that increase cost or otherwise impact 
their ability to layer on new technology. Nondepository institution 
data providers do not face these same obstacles. They do not have as 
many vendors and information technology systems that would need to be 
connected, and implementation could generally occur in-house. Thus, 
they could move faster to implement the rule's requirements. In 
preamble, the CFPB noted that data providers might need to transition 
third parties to developer interfaces in a staggered order; proposed 
Sec.  1033.321 provided flexibility in that respect.
    Subject to the limitations of proposed Sec. Sec.  1033.321 and 
1033.111(d), proposed Sec.  1033.121 would have required data providers 
to make data access available by four compliance dates, all tied to 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register: (1) depository 
institutions with $500 billion in total assets and nondepository 
institutions that generate $10 billion in revenue in the preceding 
calendar year or that are projected to generate $10 billion in revenue 
in the current calendar year would have been required to comply 
approximately six months after Federal Register publication; (2) 
depository institutions with between $50 billion and $500 billion in 
total assets and nondepository institutions that generate less than $10 
billion in the preceding calendar year and are projected to generate 
less than $10 billion in the current calendar year would have been 
required to comply approximately one year after Federal Register 
publication; (3) depository institutions with between $850 million and 
$50 billion in total assets would have been required to comply 
approximately 2.5 years after Federal Register publication; and (4) 
depository institutions with under $850 million in total assets would 
have been required to comply approximately four years after Federal 
Register publication.
    The CFPB sought comment on a number of issues, including whether 
different or additional criteria should be taken into consideration 
when determining compliance dates, on the structure of each tier, and 
whether nondepository institutions should be included in all tiers. The 
CFPB also sought comment on whether the final rule should include 
language clarifying the time allowed to fully transition third parties 
to data access, so as to ensure that data providers do not impede 
timely third party access to an interface while also accounting for 
reasonable risk management.

[[Page 90859]]

Comments Received
    Most commenters that addressed this section stated that a tiered 
implementation schedule was appropriate, while a few nondepository 
entity trade association, consumer advocate, and bank trade association 
and bank commenters stated that such implementation would incentivize 
data aggregators and third parties to prioritize and work with larger 
entities and would temporarily create gaps in consumer data access 
across the market. One consumer advocate commenter also stated that 
tiered compliance may inadvertently disadvantage smaller institutions 
because the current speed of digital transformation can benefit larger, 
more resourced providers who will have a head start on developing norms 
for interfaces while less resourced providers will have less of a say 
in how those interfaces are developed. A nondepository entity trade 
association and a research institute commenter suggested that the CFPB 
should allow transition time once an API is available to move access 
gradually to the API and provide for a transition period rather than 
final compliance dates. Commenters did not specify how the final rule 
should structure a transition period without final compliance dates. A 
data aggregator and a third party nondepository entity commenter also 
suggested that the final rule impose different compliance dates on 
different requirements in the final rule. One data aggregator commenter 
suggested specific API endpoints by which to set different deadlines 
for specific separate requirements.
    Most commenters who addressed this section recommended that 
compliance dates account for the timeline for development of consensus 
standards (with some specific suggestions regarding standard file 
format and developer interface standardized format) and occur after the 
CFPB's recognition of a standard-setting body, occur after the issuance 
of a qualified industry standard, or some combination of the above. See 
the discussion of Sec.  1033.311(b) in part IV.C.3 below regarding the 
timing of the issuance of consensus standards by recognized standard 
setters.
    Though a consumer advocate and a couple third party nondepository 
commenters saw the proposed compliance dates as appropriate, the 
majority of commenters, including banks, credit unions, credit union 
and bank trade associations, and nondepository entity trade 
associations, on this section described them as too short. Commenters 
explained that data providers would need to work with third parties, 
taking care not to put existing consumer account connections at risk 
when migrating and onboarding third parties to compliant data access, 
and would also need to ensure compliance with other rules, including 
any FCRA rules issued by the CFPB. Bank, credit union, and bank and 
credit union trade association commenters also noted many other actions 
data providers would have to engage in to comply, including updating 
public-facing websites to meet disclosure requirements, generating and 
publishing performance metrics, ensuring data are provided in a 
standardized format, ensuring support for required data elements that 
are not currently shared, build new functionality pertaining to 
machine-readable files accessible for consumers, and managing new 
access duration requirements, among other actions. Credit union trade 
association commenters described the potential for a bottleneck in the 
proposed third tier because it would cover over 1,000 banks and credit 
unions, and requested an additional tier that would allow five years 
for implementation. One bank commenter stated that banks with less than 
$10 billion in total assets exclusively rely on third parties to 
provide digital banking, including bill payment portals, and core 
processing systems. One law firm commenter stated that nondepository 
institution data providers would have the most burden in complying 
because they are less likely to already have interfaces and policies in 
place to timely receive and respond to requests for data. Different 
commenters offered various time periods for how long compliance should 
be. Suggestions ranged from allowing an additional six to 18 months for 
all tiers, 24 months for the largest data providers, four to six years 
for small providers, and at least 10 years for all data providers.
    Some bank, bank trade association, third party nondepository 
entity, and nondepository entity trade association commenters requested 
compliance dates for third parties and aggregators. One stated that the 
CFPB should ensure that the compliance date for the largest data 
providers is feasible not only for the relevant data providers but also 
for data recipients. Another stated that there should be a 12-month 
compliance period for aggregators and merchants that use aggregators, 
and a six-month grace period thereafter for aggregators to cure any 
technical violations that do not result in direct instances of consumer 
harm.
    Finally, one bank trade association commenter asked for 
clarification as to how ownership structure influences which tier an 
entity falls into as some entities are comprised of multiple types of 
companies.
Final Rule
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing Sec.  
1033.121 with revisions to increase the number of compliance date 
tiers, redefine the types of depository institutions included in each 
tier, change the metrics used to define the types of data providers 
included in each tier, extend compliance deadlines for all tiers, and 
provide clarification for how depository institution data providers 
determine compliance deadlines when their total assets do not meet the 
threshold for coverage as of the effective date but subsequently cross 
that threshold. Specifically, Sec.  1033.121(b) provides that, in the 
first tier, depository institution data providers that hold at least 
$250 billion in total assets and nondepository institution data 
providers that generated at least $10 billion in total receipts in 
either calendar year 2023 or calendar year 2024 must comply by April 1, 
2026. In the second tier, depository institution data providers that 
hold at least $10 billion in total assets but less than $250 billion in 
total assets and nondepository institution data providers that 
generated less than $10 billion in total receipts in both calendar year 
2023 and calendar year 2024 must comply by April 1, 2027. In the third 
tier, depository institution data providers that hold at least $3 
billion in total assets but less than $10 billion in total assets must 
comply by April 1, 2028. In the fourth tier, depository institution 
data providers that hold at least $1.5 billion in total assets but less 
than $3 billion in total assets must comply by April 1, 2029. In the 
final tier, depository institution data providers that hold less than 
$1.5 billion in total assets but more than $850 million in total assets 
must comply by April 1, 2030.
    Data providers must have established functioning developer and 
consumer interfaces required under Sec.  1033.301(a) that are 
technically capable of complying with the requirements in subparts B 
and C of part 1033 by their compliance deadline. For example, developer 
interfaces must be able to make available all covered data (as defined 
in Sec.  1033.211) in a standardized format (Sec.  1033.311(b)) and be 
capable of performing in a commercially reasonable manner (Sec.  
1033.311(c)). Some data providers will be able to receive requests from 
authorized third parties for covered data through their developer 
interface by then. However, the CFPB recognizes that other data

[[Page 90860]]

providers may need to transition existing third party access 
arrangements or otherwise onboard new third parties after their 
compliance deadline as necessary to avoid violating other legal 
obligations and to manage the technical integration process.
    The CFPB recognizes that data providers may need time to onboard 
third parties in a staggered manner in accordance with sound risk 
management. It is permissible under the final rule to manage the 
onboarding process a staged manner, to the extent permitted under Sec.  
1033.321. As discussed further in part IV.C.4 below, a data provider 
could rely on Sec.  1033.321 to deny a third party access to the 
developer interface temporarily, consistent with policies and 
procedures reasonably designed to comply with safety and soundness 
standards of a prudential regulator (among other legal obligations), 
and if the denial complies with Sec.  1033.321(b). Once a third party 
has access to the developer interface, a data provider must respond to 
requests for covered data in accordance with the rule.
    It will raise significant concerns if a data provider seeks to rely 
on Sec.  1033.321 to justify noncompliance with the technical 
requirements of subparts B and C of the final rule, such as those 
impacting functionality, commercially reasonable performance, or 
security of the developer interface. Such requirements are independent 
of whether a data provider can deny a third party access under Sec.  
1033.321. For example, it likely would be impermissible for a data 
provider to deny a third party access under Sec.  1033.321 temporarily, 
in connection with onboarding, solely because the data provider's 
developer interface could not scale to achieve the 99.5 percent 
response rate required under Sec.  1033.311(c)(1) for periods with a 
high volume of requests.
    To be clear, Sec.  1033.321 does not allow data providers to delay 
access during the onboarding process unreasonably. For example, a data 
provider could not manage the onboarding process in an inconsistent or 
discriminatory manner. Establishing policies and procedures to manage 
the onboarding process as expeditiously as possible in a way that 
properly accounts for relevant risk management considerations will help 
ensure data providers do not unlawfully avoid their obligations to 
implement CFPA section 1033. In managing the onboarding process, data 
providers are also subject to the rule's anti-evasion provision in 
Sec.  1033.201(a)(2) and other applicable consumer financial laws, 
including the prohibition on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or 
practices.
    Section 1033.121(a) provides that a data provider's compliance date 
is based upon the calculation of total assets or total receipts, as 
appropriate. Section 1033.121(a)(1) also provides that, for depository 
institution data providers, total assets are determined by averaging 
the assets reported on its 2023 third quarter, 2023 fourth quarter, 
2024 first quarter, and 2024 second quarter call report data 
submissions to the FFIEC or NCUA, as applicable, or its submissions to 
the appropriate oversight body to the extent it does not submit such 
reports to the FFIEC or NCUA. With respect a commenter's request to 
clarify how ownership structure influences which tier a depository 
institution falls into for compliance purposes, the regulatory text 
makes clear that a depository institution data provider looks to the 
total assets it reports on its call report data submissions. Section 
1033.121(a)(2) provides that, for nondepository institution data 
providers, total receipts are calculated based on the SBA definition of 
receipts, as codified in 13 CFR 121.104(a). Section 1033.121(c) states 
compliance timelines for depository institution data providers that do 
not meet the coverage threshold as of the rule's effective date, but 
that subsequently cross that threshold. It provides that a depository 
institution data provider has a reasonable amount of time to comply 
with the rule after exceeding the size standard, and that the 
reasonable amount of time shall not exceed five years. This period is 
counted from the submission of a data provider's fourth call report 
described in the asset size calculation in Sec.  1033.111(d)(2), the 
analysis of which, under such calculation, results in an asset size 
that crosses the size threshold.
    The compliance periods for each tier in the final rule will ensure 
that data providers of different sizes and resources will have the 
appropriate amount of time to comply, in part, because the largest, 
most resourced data providers will be complying first and smaller 
depository institution data providers who are most likely to be relying 
on core providers and other third parties will be split into 
additional, smaller, more manageable tiers. The largest data providers, 
many of which already have the required interfaces in development, have 
until April 1, 2026, to comply, which will provide them with sufficient 
time to meet the rule's requirements. Comments received from the 
largest depository institution data providers, as well as data provider 
trade associations and a few smaller banks and credit unions, requested 
24 months for the largest depository institution data providers to 
comply, but also noted that many of the largest depository institution 
data providers already have interfaces that could be adapted to comply 
with the final rule's requirements when issued and did not specify why 
24 months would be necessary to build the developer interface required 
by the rule. In addition, some commenters requesting 24 months 
identified aspects of implementation related to onboarding third 
parties onto a developer interface and processing requests. As 
discussed above, data providers must have established functioning 
interfaces by their compliance dates and are permitted to manage 
granting third parties access to the developer interface, consistent 
with Sec.  1033.321.
    The second tier of data providers will have more than two years to 
comply, which will allow them to learn from the experience coming into 
compliance of the first tier of data providers; the same is true for 
the third tier of data providers with more than three years for 
compliance. The fourth and fifth tiers, which constitute the smallest 
depository institution data providers by asset size and the entities 
most likely to depend on core processors or other third parties to 
assist with compliance, will be able to learn from the experiences of 
the data providers that had to comply earlier and should have a 
smoother transition than they might otherwise. These periods balance 
the need for effective compliance with the provision of sufficient time 
to ensure a smooth transition and minimize time between tier compliance 
to ensure that any temporary data access gaps will be short lived. The 
CFPB has revised the compliance date tiers in response to comments, to 
reduce the total number of depository institutions in each tier. This 
should reduce the burden on core processors and other third parties, 
easing overall compliance efforts.
    Consistent with the proposed rule, nondepository institution data 
providers must comply with the final rule's requirements as part of the 
first or second tiers. But these tiers now have more time to achieve 
compliance. Further, though one law firm commenter stated that 
nondepository institution data providers are most likely not to already 
have interfaces and policies in place to timely receive and respond to 
requests for data, this assertion does not negate the CFPB's finding, 
through the SBREFA process and ongoing market monitoring, that such 
data providers do not have as many vendors and information

[[Page 90861]]

technology systems that will need to be connected and that 
implementation by nondepository institution data providers can occur 
in-house without the need to engage core processors or other third 
party vendors. These data providers also tend to have business models 
that are based on the ability to adopt to technological innovations 
relatively quickly. Thus, these data providers will be able to move 
more quickly to implement the rule's requirements.
    The final rule clarifies that, for purposes of determining an 
institution's compliance date, a depository institution data provider 
must look at the average total assets over a defined year of call 
report data. Averaging total assets over the course of one year 
provides a more accurate picture of asset holdings than just using 
assets as of the end of a single calendar quarter. A nondepository 
institution data provider must look at its total receipts, as 
calculated based on the SBA definition of receipts in 13 CFR 
121.104(a). The SBA definition of receipts is widely used in many 
regulations and provides a comprehensive, consistent definition for 
nondepository institution data providers to benchmark their revenue. 
These provisions will ensure that all institutions are using consistent 
metrics to determine compliance periods.
    Section 1033.111(d) addresses asset limitations to coverage for 
depository institution data providers and specifies asset calculation 
methods. Section 1033.121(c) discusses compliance timing for depository 
institution data providers that are at or below the asset threshold at 
the effective date but later exceed the applicable threshold. This 
provision allows such institutions a reasonable time to comply after 
they exceed the applicable threshold, not to exceed five years. The 
smallest depository institution data providers subject to the rule's 
requirements as of the rule's effective date will have approximately 
five years to comply, making this a logical ceiling for compliance 
timing for depository institution data providers that subsequently 
become subject to the rule's requirements. However, as more time passes 
and more institutions implement the rule's requirements, compliance 
will become less onerous, less expensive and require less time. Thus, 
what constitutes a reasonable amount of time for compliance may evolve 
downward with time.
    The final rule does not set explicit compliance dates for third 
parties because they are unnecessary. The CFPB is providing additional 
time for the largest data providers to come into compliance with the 
rule, which will give third parties and aggregators additional time to 
prepare for implementation of the rule. In addition, transitioning the 
market from screen scraping will further incentivize third parties and 
aggregators to meet the requirements to request proper access under the 
terms of the rule. See part IV.4 above for a discussion of whether data 
providers complying with this rule are furnishers under the FCRA.
6. Definitions (Sec.  1033.131)
Card Issuer, Covered Consumer Financial Product or Service, Covered 
Data, Data Provider, Financial Institution, Recognized Standard Setter, 
Regulation E Account, and Regulation Z Credit Card
    Consistent with the proposed rule, the coverage-related terms--card 
issuer, covered consumer financial product or service, covered data, 
data provider, financial institution, Regulation E account, and 
Regulation Z credit card--are listed under Sec.  1033.131 with cross-
references to the full definitions in Sec. Sec.  1033.111 and 1033.211 
(covered data).
    The term recognized standard setter, which was finalized in the 
Industry Standard-Setting Final Rule, is also listed under Sec.  
1033.131 with a cross-reference to the full definition in Sec.  
1033.141. As finalized in that rule, the term refers to a standard-
setting body with certain attributes listed in Sec.  1033.141(a) 
(finalized as part of the Industry Standard-Setting Final Rule), 
including recognition by the CFPB pursuant to certain application 
procedures. The CFPB began accepting applications from standard-setting 
bodies seeking recognition in the summer of 2024.
Authorized Third Party
    The CFPB proposed under section 1033(a) to require data providers 
to make available covered data to certain third parties ``acting on 
behalf'' of a consumer. The CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.131 to define 
the term authorized third party as a third party that has complied with 
the authorization procedures described in proposed Sec.  1033.401. 
Proposed Sec.  1033.401 specified what requirements a third party would 
have to satisfy to become an authorized third party, and thus be 
entitled to access covered data on behalf of a consumer.
    Few commenters addressed the proposed definition of authorized 
third party. A third party commenter stated that data aggregators 
sometimes function as authorized third parties. The commenter 
recommended that the rule clarify how the definition applies to a data 
aggregator that follows the authorization procedures, stating that the 
definitions of authorized third party and data aggregator could be 
modified to note that an entity could be both. More generally, several 
commenters raised concerns about the scope of third parties that should 
be permitted under the rule to access covered data on behalf of 
consumers. These comments are addressed in part IV.D.1 below.
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is adopting the 
definition of authorized third party as proposed to mean a third party 
that has complied with the authorization procedures in Sec.  1033.401. 
As discussed in more detail in part IV.D, the authorization procedures 
are designed to ensure that third parties accessing covered data under 
section 1033(a) of the CFPA pursuant to the rule's framework are 
``acting on behalf'' of a consumer, and therefore consistent with the 
definition of consumer in CFPA section 1002(4). This definition of an 
authorized third party provides a term to designate which third parties 
are entitled to access consumer information, on the consumer's behalf, 
pursuant to the rule's framework.
    It is not necessary for the definition of authorized third party to 
specify that a data aggregator may also function as an authorized third 
party in other circumstances. A third party may play different roles in 
different circumstances. However, for a particular request for access 
to covered data, an entity would play only one role. The definition of 
authorized third party (like the definitions of data aggregator and 
data provider) is designed only to identify what role an entity plays 
for that particular request for access to covered data.
Consensus Standard
    The CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.131 to define the term qualified 
industry standard to mean a standard issued by a standard-setting body 
that is fair, open, and inclusive in accordance with Sec.  1033.141(a), 
which includes CFPB recognition. In the Industry Standard-Setting Final 
Rule, the CFPB addressed comments regarding the proposed qualified 
industry standard definition, the attributes of a standard-setting 
body, and the process for CFPB recognition. The Industry Standard-
Setting Final Rule revised the definition of qualified industry 
standard in proposed Sec.  1033.131 and renamed it a ``consensus 
standard.''
    While the Industry Standard-Setting Final Rule adopted this term, 
it did not

[[Page 90862]]

address the role consensus standards would play in this final rule. The 
CFPB generally proposed that conformance to a qualified industry 
standard would provide ``indicia,'' or partial evidence, of data 
providers' and third parties' compliance with specified provisions. 
Generally, conformance to a qualified industry standard would not be 
required to comply nor would it constitute compliance with a specified 
provision.\53\ No provision in the proposal would have required a data 
provider or third party to comply with a qualified industry standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ The one exception to that approach was with respect to the 
proposed requirement that a data provider's developer interface make 
covered data available in a ``standardized format'' in proposed 
Sec.  1033.311(b). In that case, adherence to a qualified industry 
standard would have been deemed to satisfy the requirement. The 
final rule instead uses the indicia-of-compliance approach in that 
context, for the reasons explained in the discussion of final Sec.  
1033.311 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many commenters addressed the role consensus standards should play 
in the implementation of the final rule. Generally, commenters 
supported inclusion of standards set by voluntary standard-setting 
bodies, and focused on whether the standards should be indicia of 
compliance or something else, such as a safe harbor. Some commenters 
believed consensus standards should play no role in the final 
rulemaking and should rather be wholly determined by private standard-
setting bodies.
    One civil rights group commenter supported the proposal's approach 
to weighing standards as indicia of compliance. Further, data provider 
commenters preferred to consider compliance with consensus standards as 
an indicator of compliance rather than a requirement for compliance.
    Some data provider and third party commenters recommended that 
consensus standards provide a legal safe harbor for compliance with 
various provisions of the final rule. These commenters suggested that a 
safe harbor would provide certainty and clarity to market participants 
and would encourage participants to invest in the setting of and 
compliance with appropriate standards. Further, commenters expressed 
concern that some participants may not expend the resources to conform 
to consensus standards if doing so could still result in noncompliance 
with regulatory requirements. Additionally, some bank commenters 
recommended that if the rule does not employ consensus standards as 
safe harbors, it should instead use a ``commercially reasonable'' 
standard. These commenters expressed concern that the ``indicia of 
compliance'' terminology could receive excessive weight by market 
participants, and effectively become the implicit compliance regime of 
the rule.
    A variety of commenters opposed the framework for recognizing 
standard-setting bodies. Some commenters stated that CFPA section 1033 
does not address the CFPB's authority to recognize standard-setting 
bodies as capable of issuing consensus standards for data providers and 
third parties, and that the proposed standards framework could conflict 
with prudential requirements imposed on data providers. One research 
institute commenter opposed the consensus standards framework on the 
grounds that the Federal Government should not interfere with the 
internal governance of private standard-setting bodies.
    Generally, the CFPB has determined that consensus standards can 
usefully serve as indicia of compliance for various provisions stated 
throughout the final rule. If the final rule provided safe harbors, as 
some commenters suggested, recognized standard setters could play a 
regulatory role, rather than a consensus standard-setting one. Such an 
approach would also ignore the fact that a standard may be insufficient 
in some respect (for example, for incompleteness given the rule 
requirement on point) or in particular, idiosyncratic circumstances. 
The indicia of compliance framework maintains part 1033 as the 
applicable legal standard while giving due weight to a fair, open, and 
inclusive consensus standard as evidence of compliance with the 
rule.\54\ Consensus standards can assist entities in fulfilling their 
legal obligations but do not relieve an entity from its duty to confirm 
that it is complying with the rule.\55\ By the same token, consensus 
standards are not mandates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ In this respect, the CFPB encourages recognized standard 
setters to ensure a consensus standard complies with the final rule 
and that they maintain procedures that allow regulated entities to 
straightforwardly evidence their conformance to a consensus standard 
at negligible cost.
    \55\ The CFPB may be able to provide additional guidance about 
particular consensus standards, especially if market participants 
seek that in particular cases. However, that is different from 
providing a safe harbor for all the consensus standards that may 
have some bearing on rule compliance, as requested by some 
commenters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While some commenters advocated for a ``commercially reasonable'' 
test as a substitute for consensus standards, the CFPB believes that 
looking exclusively at commercial reasonableness would ignore the 
potential benefits of more specific consensus standards developed 
through a fair, open, and inclusive process involving all stakeholders. 
As discussed below, in the context of Sec.  1033.311(c)(1), a developer 
interface must provide a response within a commercially reasonable 
amount of time and indicia of such a response includes conformance to 
an applicable consensus standard.
    Regarding the comment opposing Federal Government involvement in 
the governance of private standard-setting bodies, the CFPB notes that 
it has a legitimate interest in ensuring that standard-setting bodies 
follow an appropriate process when issuing standards as to which 
conformance carries some indicia of compliance with a CFPB rule. 
Moreover, no existing or future private entity is required to become a 
CFPB-recognized standard-setting body, and a range of external 
standards may continue to be of utility and value to regulated entities 
even if they are not consensus standards adopted by recognized standard 
setters. The CFPB is finalizing the provisions of the final rule that 
cite consensus standards using its rulemaking authority under CFPA 
section 1033(a) and (d) and section 1022(b)(1). These provisions carry 
out the objectives of section 1033 by encouraging the development of 
fair, open, and inclusive industry standards that will facilitate 
implementation of the final rule.
    Regarding some commenters' concern that consensus standards could 
conflict with prudential requirements, CFPA section 1033(e) requires 
that the CFPB consult with the prudential regulators and the FTC so 
that certain objectives are met. In compliance with this provision, 
prior to issuing the Industry Standard-Setting Final Rule the CFPB 
consulted on several occasions with staff from the prudential 
regulators and the FTC to discuss various aspects of the rule, 
including criteria for and processes with respect to standard-setting 
bodies. Such discussions were, in part, to achieve effective alignment 
between the Industry Standard-Setting Final Rule and prudential 
requirements. The CFPB has conducted further consultations after the 
release of the Industry Standard-Setting Final Rule and is not aware of 
conflicts with prudential requirements. In addition, because consensus 
standards serve as indicia, nothing in a consensus standard could 
legally override a Federal legal obligation, prudential or otherwise. A 
hypothesized conflict, accordingly, could not be meaningful.
    Details about the role of consensus standards with regard to 
particular requirements of the final rule can be found in the 
discussion below.

[[Page 90863]]

Consumer
    The CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.131 to define the term consumer for 
purposes of part 1033 to mean a natural person. The proposed definition 
specified that trusts established for tax or estate planning purposes 
would be considered natural persons. The preamble to the proposal 
explained that the proposed definition differs from the definition of 
consumer in CFPA section 1002(4), which defines a consumer as ``an 
individual or an agent, trustee, or representative acting on behalf of 
an individual.'' The preamble explained the proposed definition was 
designed to distinguish the term consumer from third parties that are 
authorized to access covered data on behalf of a consumer pursuant to 
the proposed procedures in subpart D.
    A bank and some trade associations for banks supported the proposed 
approach not to refer to ``agents'' in the definition of consumer, 
because they said including agents could cause significant confusion or 
complication as there are numerous parties which could act as the 
consumer's agent and would have access to covered data pursuant to the 
third party authorization procedures in subpart D. Some commenters, 
including third parties and data aggregators, noted what they described 
as potential confusion related to the proposed definition being 
different from the statutory definition. Others, like data aggregators 
and third parties, stated that the final rule should align the 
definition of consumer to the statutory definition.
    Commenters also asked for additional changes and clarifications 
related to the definition of consumer. For example, a data provider and 
trade associations for banks requested clarification around the 
proposed rule's inclusion of trusts established for tax or estate 
planning purposes as natural persons, and how a trust could authorize a 
third party to access the trust's data. Trade associations for third 
parties suggested the definition of consumer should be narrowed to 
include only consumers with at least one current account with the data 
provider. Additionally, a consumer advocate stated that the final rule 
should include in the definition of consumer small businesses seeking 
access to their financial data.
    Finally, some banks, trade associations for data providers, third 
parties, and data aggregators focused on how smaller commercial third 
parties, or parties that traditionally would not require authorization 
through section 1033 to access consumer data, might be impacted by the 
rule (e.g., how a small broker-dealer might be treated if they are not 
considered a consumer; and how custodians, guardians, and other 
authorized agents may authorize third parties).
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing the 
definition of ``consumer'' in the rule as proposed with a modification 
to specify that the term includes guardians, trustees, custodians, or 
similar natural persons acting on behalf of a consumer pursuant to 
State law.
    The term consumer is commonly used in various consumer finance-
related contexts to refer to individuals, i.e., natural persons. See, 
e.g., Regulation E, 12 CFR 1005.2(e). The final rule accounts for the 
CFPA's definition, which also includes ``an agent, trustee, or 
representative acting on behalf of an individual,'' by establishing 
third party authorization procedures described in subpart D to ensure 
all relevant parties may access covered data. Accordingly, the 
substance of the rule aligns with the CFPA's definition of consumer, 
and nothing in the CFPA prevents the CFPB from using different 
vocabulary within such a rule.
    Further, as described above, some commenters requested 
clarification regarding the inclusion of trusts as natural persons for 
purposes of the definition of consumer. Trusts are referred to as 
natural persons in other consumer finance-related contexts. See, e.g., 
Regulation Z comment 3(a)-10 (``Credit extended for consumer purposes 
to certain trusts is considered to be credit extended to a natural 
person rather than credit extended to an organization.''). In the 
context of CFPA section 1033, a data provider would control or possess 
the covered data concerning a consumer financial product or service 
that the trust obtained from the data provider. As such, trusts 
established for estate or tax planning purposes are appropriately 
considered consumers in the context of CFPA section 1033.
    In the proposed rule, the CFPB requested comment on how individuals 
who are not account owners currently use existing legal mechanisms to 
directly access covered data. As described above, some commenters 
sought clarification on how parties that traditionally would not 
require authorization through CFPA section 1033 to access consumer data 
might be impacted by the rule. For example, some commenters cited 
guardians and custodians as examples of natural persons who might 
manage certain accounts and therefore attempt to authorize third 
parties to access covered data. After considering these comments, the 
CFPB is including in the definition of consumer a statement that 
consumers include guardians, trustees, custodians, or similar natural 
persons acting on behalf of a consumer pursuant to State law. In these 
circumstances, natural persons who manage consumer accounts through 
legal instrumentation are granted authority to manage those assets. 
Custodial accounts, for example, may be established by financial 
institutions under the Uniform Gifts to Minors Act (see generally 8A 
U.L.A. 405 (1983)) or the Uniform Transfers to Minors Act (see 
generally 8A U.L.A. 153 (Supp. 1987)), and are set up and managed by an 
adult for the benefit of a minor until the minor reaches the age of 
majority. Guardianships, trusts, and custodian accounts function 
similarly: existing legal processes, unrelated to CFPA section 1033's 
data access rights, establish rights for a natural person to manage the 
assets and income for another natural person. In these cases, it would 
be appropriate for the natural person duly authorized to manage another 
natural person's covered financial products or services to also 
authorize third parties to access the covered data related to those 
products or services pursuant to section 1033. Further, the State 
statutory and common law protections in place that cover these persons 
are sufficient such that these persons can be considered consumers when 
acting in those capacities for another person, and it is not necessary 
to apply the provisions of subpart D to them.
    The CFPB is aware that some corporate terms and conditions contain 
provisions by which consumers purportedly appear to consent, upon 
acceptance, to the corporate entities' limited powers of attorney to 
act as agents for the consumers. These circumstances would not position 
such corporate entities as consumers under the revised definition in 
final Sec.  1033.131 of the rule because they are factually and legally 
different from those circumstances addressed by the final rule's 
definition of consumer. The natural persons considered consumers under 
the final rule have broad authority established through State law 
mechanisms to stand directly in the shoes of the consumer with respect 
to the covered financial product or service associated with the 
consumer.
    Finally, as described above, some commenters suggested the CFPB 
narrow the final rule to include only consumers with at least one 
current account with the data provider. The CFPB has determined that 
Sec. Sec.  1033.201(a) and 1033.331 and the authorization procedures 
described in Sec.  1033.401

[[Page 90864]]

sufficiently ensure that consumers who have covered data and accounts 
with the data provider can authorize third parties to access covered 
data, while the exceptions in CFPA section 1033(b) and Sec.  1033.221 
ensure that data providers are not required to provide information that 
they cannot provide in the ordinary course of business. A commenter 
also suggested the final rule include small businesses in the 
definition of consumer. However, CFPA section 1033 applies only to 
``consumer financial products and services'' as defined in CFPA section 
1002(5). Accordingly, expanding the final rule to include small 
business accounts would be inconsistent with the statutory text. 
However, the CFPB expects that small business account providers may 
find the framework of part 1033 to be a useful model for enabling small 
businesses to share data about their accounts, and therefore may choose 
to use their developer interfaces to facilitate that access.
Consumer Interface
    The CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.131 to define consumer interface as 
an interface through which a data provider receives requests for 
covered data and makes available covered data in an electronic form 
usable by consumers in response to the requests.
    No commenters objected to the proposal's general approach of a 
framework under which authorized third parties would not be entitled 
under part 1033 to access individual consumers' covered data through 
providers' functionality designed for consumers. Depository 
institutions and depository institution trade associations stated, 
however, that the proposed definition was insufficiently clear because 
under the proposal a depository institution data provider would have 
been exempt from part 1033 if it did not have a consumer interface. 
They said that a data provider with relatively basic online banking 
functionality for its consumer account holders would not be able to 
determine with sufficient certainty whether that functionality 
qualified as a ``consumer interface'' thereby subjecting the data 
provider to the requirements of part 1033.
    Under the final rule, the application or non-application of part 
1033 to a depository institution data provider does not depend in whole 
or in part on whether or not the data provider has functionality for 
providing covered data to individual consumers. Instead, as discussed 
elsewhere, it is determined by whether the data provider is above a 
certain asset size. As a result, a data provider above that asset size 
and thus subject to part 1033 does not need to determine whether the 
functionality through which it makes covered data available to 
individual consumers meets the definition, but instead must ensure that 
it offers functionality for making covered data available that meets 
the requirements of subparts B and C of part 1033.\56\ Accordingly, the 
rule's label for that functionality--the ``consumer interface'' 
definition--does not need modification and the CFPB adopts the 
definition as proposed for the reasons discussed herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ If a data provider has more than one mechanism through 
which it makes available covered data to consumers, each of the 
mechanisms does not individually need to satisfy the requirements of 
part 1033. Collectively, the mechanisms must do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Data Aggregator
    The CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.131 to define the term data 
aggregator to mean an entity that is retained by and provides services 
to the authorized third party to enable access to covered data. The 
proposed rule noted that some third parties retain data aggregators for 
assistance in obtaining access to data from data providers. Certain 
provisions in proposed Sec.  1033.431 specified what role data 
aggregators would play in the third party authorization procedures, 
what information about data aggregators would have to be included in 
the authorization disclosure, and what conditions data aggregators 
would have to certify that they agree to as part of the third party 
authorization procedures. The CFPB requested comment on whether data 
aggregator is an appropriate term for describing third parties that may 
provide assistance in accessing covered data or whether there are other 
terms, such as ``data intermediary,'' that would be more appropriate.
    Some commenters stated that the proposed definition was too broad. 
A research institute commenter stated that the proposed definition 
would sweep in any service provider or subcontractor that contributes 
in any way to a third party being able to access consumer data from a 
data provider. The commenter recommended narrowing the definition to 
avoid imposing burdens on service providers that have no direct 
relationship to consumers or their data. A nondepository entity 
commenter stated that data aggregator is a generic term that could lead 
to confusion and recommended that the rule provide more granular 
definitions of the different types of services provided, with the term 
data aggregator applying only to entities that aggregate all types of 
financial data. A data aggregator commenter stated that the rule should 
use the term data access platform instead of data aggregator because 
the term data aggregator does not fully reflect the role that such 
entities play and that data access platform is a market standard term.
    In contrast, a bank and a bank trade association commenter stated 
that the proposed definition of data aggregator was too narrow. The 
bank commenter requested that the definition of data aggregator be 
expanded to include data aggregators that assist non-authorized third 
parties in accessing consumer data.
    Several commenters recommended that the CFPB clarify the proposed 
definition of data aggregator. A research institute commenter stated 
that the CFPB should clarify whether a data aggregator can be an 
authorized third party. Two credit union trade associations recommended 
that the rule clarify what ``retained by'' means in the context of a 
third party that uses a wholly owned subsidiary as a data aggregator, 
and also what ``enable access to covered data'' means for a 
credentialing service that facilitates a data provider's risk 
management and data security review. Finally, they stated that the rule 
should clarify whether ``enabling access'' requires a data aggregator 
to be the party connected to a developer interface.
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing the 
definition of data aggregator with a minor change from the proposal. 
The proposal defined data aggregator to mean an entity that is retained 
by and provides services to the authorized third party to enable access 
to covered data. The term ``person'' as used elsewhere in the rule and 
in the CFPA includes both natural persons and entities. In most 
situations, a data aggregator will be an entity rather than a natural 
person. However, to account for the situation in which a data 
aggregator is not an entity and for consistency with other definitions, 
such as third party, the CFPB is revising the definition to change 
``entity'' to ``person,'' so that data aggregator means a person that 
is retained by and provides services to the authorized third party to 
enable access to covered data. This definition of data aggregator 
strikes an appropriate balance. It is broad enough to include persons 
that provide various types of services to authorized third parties that 
enable access to covered data, ensuring that the consumer protections 
related to data aggregators will apply to persons involved in accessing 
and collecting covered data. It is not limited to persons that are 
connected to a developer

[[Page 90865]]

interface, as it also covers persons collecting, processing, or 
combining covered data.
    However, by limiting the scope of the definition to persons that 
provide services to the authorized third party to enable access to 
covered data, the definition avoids sweeping in persons that are 
providing services that are only incidentally connected to data access. 
Contrary to the concerns raised by one commenter, the definition does 
not cover a person that contributes in any way to accessing covered 
data; the person must provide services that enable access to covered 
data in order to meet the definition of a data aggregator. The CFPB has 
determined that it would not be appropriate to adopt more granular 
definitions based on the specific services that entities provide. The 
purpose of the data aggregator definition is to identify persons that, 
regardless of the specific services they provide, are subject to 
various consumer protections in the rule because of their involvement 
with and proximity to covered data.
    As noted above in connection with the discussion of the definition 
of authorized third party, the CFPB recognizes that persons may play 
different roles in different transactions and that an entity may be a 
data aggregator in some transactions and an authorized third party in 
others. The definitions of data aggregator and authorized third party 
are intended to identify what role an entity is playing with respect to 
a particular request for covered data and are not fixed terms. 
Regarding the comment about whether a wholly owned subsidiary of a 
third party could be a data aggregator, the CFPB notes that, assuming 
the subsidiary is a separate person from the third party, the 
subsidiary could be a data aggregator.
    The CFPB declines to expand the scope of the data aggregator 
definition to include data aggregators that serve non-authorized third 
parties. The data aggregator definition, and the provisions related to 
data aggregators in Sec.  1033.431, are designed to specify what 
obligations data aggregators must satisfy when they assist authorized 
third parties that access covered data on a consumer's behalf pursuant 
to the rule's framework. Expanding the definition of data aggregator to 
include persons that provide data aggregation services to non-
authorized third parties would go beyond the scope of the consumer-
authorized data access framework described in the rule.
    The CFPB also declines to further expand upon what ``enable access 
to covered data'' means in specific contexts, as requested by some 
commenters. The definition is designed to capture a variety of 
different arrangements and accordingly is sufficiently clear. Finally, 
the CFPB declines to adopt a term other than data aggregator. Only one 
commenter recommended using a different term, and data aggregator is a 
widely used and understood term.
Depository Institution
    The CFPB is adding a definition of depository institution to the 
final rule for clarity and to facilitate compliance with the rule. The 
definition of depository institution is any depository institution as 
defined in the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 1813(c)(1), or 
any credit union as defined in the NCUA's regulation at 12 CFR 700.2. 
This definition provides additional clarity that all depository 
institutions, not just bank entities, are included when the rule refers 
to depository institutions.
Developer Interface
    The CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.131 to define developer interface 
as an interface through which a data provider receives requests for 
covered data and makes available covered data in an electronic form 
usable by authorized third parties in response to the requests.
    Commenters generally did not express concern with the proposed 
definition. A few blockchain-related nondepository and individual 
consumer commenters, however, stated that the CFPB should require data 
providers to grant developer interface access to individual consumers 
upon the consumers' submission of sufficient information to the data 
providers (i.e., sufficient to enable the providers to comply with 
their interface access and risk assessment obligations under part 1033 
and other laws). These commenters said that such a requirement would 
help empower consumers to serve as their own personal financial data 
custodians if they so desire.
    The final rule does not require data providers to grant developer 
interface access to individual consumers (though it also does not bar 
them from doing so). Such a requirement could burden data providers in 
ways the CFPB has not adequately evaluated by necessitating that they 
consider a high number of requests for consumer access to their 
developer interfaces. In addition, consumers may obtain their financial 
data--including in machine-readable form--through consumer interfaces.
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing the 
definition of developer interface as proposed. The definition does not 
require use of any particular technology. Instead, it facilitates the 
readability of part 1033 by establishing a brief label--``developer 
interface''--by which other provisions in part 1033 may refer to the 
functionality through which a data provider receives and responds to 
requests for covered data from authorized third parties in accordance 
with the requirements of the rule. The very limited comments on this 
definition indicate that relevant industry participants do not object 
to the utility of the term for these purposes.
Third Party
    The CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.131 to define the term third party 
as any person or entity that is not the consumer about whom the covered 
data pertains or the data provider that controls or possesses the 
consumer's covered data. The proposed rule used the term third party to 
refer to entities seeking access to covered data and to other parties, 
including data aggregators.
    A trade association for nondepository entities stated that the 
definitions of third party and data provider (addressed in Sec.  
1033.111(c)) were unclear. The commenter stated that an entity could be 
construed as either, such as when a fintech partners with a bank.
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing the 
definition of third party with a minor change from the proposal. The 
proposed definition referred to ``any person or entity.'' The term 
``person'' as used elsewhere in this rule and in the CFPA includes both 
natural persons and entities, so the phrase ``or entity'' in the 
definition of third party is unnecessary. Accordingly, the final rule 
defines third party to mean any person that is not the consumer about 
whom the covered data pertains or the data provider that controls or 
possesses the consumer's covered data.
    As discussed above in connection with the definitions of authorized 
third party and data aggregator, an entity may play different roles in 
different transactions and may serve as a data provider in one 
transaction and a third party in another transaction. The definitions 
are intended to identify what roles the parties are playing in a 
particular request for access to covered data. The CFPB concludes that 
additional clarifications in the definitions are not necessary.

[[Page 90866]]

B. Subpart B--Making Covered Data Available

1. Overview
    Disagreements around the data that should be available to consumers 
and authorized third parties have limited consumers' ability to use 
their data and imposed costs on data providers and third parties. 
Subpart B of part 1033 addresses these obstacles by establishing a 
framework for the general categories of data that must be made 
available, including specific data fields that have been significant 
sources of disagreement, and exceptions from these requirements. 
Subpart B also restates the general requirement in CFPA section 1033(a) 
for data providers to make covered data available in an electronic form 
usable by consumers and includes a prohibition against evasion.
2. Availability and Anti-Evasion (Sec.  1033.201)
General Obligation (Sec.  1033.201(a)(1))
    Consistent with the general obligation in CFPA section 1033(a), the 
CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.201(a) to require a data provider to make 
available to a consumer and an authorized third party, upon request, 
covered data in the data provider's control or possession concerning a 
covered consumer financial product or service that the consumer 
obtained from the data provider, in an electronic form usable by 
consumers and authorized third parties. It also stated that compliance 
with the requirements in Sec. Sec.  1033.301 and 1033.311 is also 
required.
    The CFPB received only a few comments addressing the restatement of 
the statutory obligation in proposed Sec.  1033.201(a). Of those, none 
objected to it and some, including consumer advocates in particular, 
supported the restatement. They argued that specific regulatory 
provisions could become outdated as technology evolves and that 
restating data providers' general statutory obligation in part 1033 
would help make clear that the general obligation to make consumers' 
data available to them and to their authorized third party 
representatives stands nonetheless. A few data provider commenters 
requested that the rule be explicit that the ``electronic form'' of 
covered data may differ as between the consumer interface and the 
developer interface.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ The CFPB also received comments requesting that it 
undertake a consumer education campaign to ensure that consumers are 
aware of their rights under CFPA section 1033. While the CFPB 
continues to consider these suggestions, they are outside the scope 
of this rulemaking and the CFPB does not address them here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing its 
restatement of CFPA's section 1033(a) general statutory obligation as 
Sec.  1033.201(a)(1). The CFPB has removed the proposed additional 
sentence that referred to Sec. Sec.  1033.301 and 1033.311, as it is 
unnecessary to state here that data provider obligations under Sec.  
1033.201(a)(1) are in addition to the data provider obligations under 
other provisions of subparts B and C. (Final Sec.  1033.201(a)(2), 
regarding anti-evasion, is discussed below.)
    The restatement in Sec.  1033.201(a)(1) of the general obligation 
under CFPA section 1033(a) to make covered data available establishes 
the core obligation of data providers in part 1033. This obligation is 
in addition to the other requirements established by part 1033. As 
commenters observed, technology and business practices will continue to 
evolve over time. As they do, data providers' general statutory 
obligation to make covered data available will remain in place, 
implemented by Sec.  1033.201(a)(1), as will data providers' 
obligations to comply with the other requirements of the rule set forth 
in subparts B and C of part 1033. To be clear, there may be overlap as 
to the substance of the requirements established by Sec.  
1033.201(a)(1) and the substance of the other requirements in subparts 
B and C, but that does not affect data providers' obligation to comply 
with the entirety of subparts B and C including Sec.  1033.201(a)(1). 
There may also be obligations under Sec.  1033.201(a)(1) that do not 
overlap with other requirements in subparts B and C; this likewise does 
not affect data providers' obligation to comply with Sec.  
1033.201(a)(1). Similarly, there may be requirements under the other 
provisions of subparts B and C that do not overlap with Sec.  
1033.201(a)(1); that does not affect data providers' obligation to 
comply with the other provisions of subparts B and C.
    Under current industry practice, it is typical for the electronic 
form of data made available through data providers' consumer interfaces 
to differ from the electronic form of data made available through their 
developer interfaces. Nothing in Sec.  1033.201(a)(1) or any other 
provision of part 1033 requires that aspect of current industry 
practice to change. Section 1033.201(a)(1) requires data providers to 
make covered data available in an electronic form usable by consumers 
and authorized third parties, but the electronic form usable by 
consumers need not be the same as the electronic form usable by 
authorized third parties.
Covered Data in Natural Language
    In the proposal, the CFPB stated that statutory requirement set 
forth in Sec.  1033.201(a) that a data provider make available covered 
data in its control or possession obligates the data provider to make a 
consumer's covered data available in Spanish or English (or any other 
language) if that is the language in which the data provider maintains 
the consumer's covered data. A few data provider commenters argued that 
the requirement should not apply to the developer interface.
    That statement from the proposal remains an accurate description of 
data providers' obligations under Sec.  1033.201(a); accordingly, the 
CFPB reaffirms it here. Some elements of covered data, discussed in 
more detail under Sec.  1033.211, are non-numeric--that is, they 
include natural language. When a data provider controls or possesses 
covered data that includes natural language, the data provider must 
make available the data in the language in which the data provider 
controls or possesses the covered data (whether that language is 
Spanish, English, or any other language). Further, this obligation 
applies to both consumer and developer interfaces.
Anti-Evasion Provision (Sec.  1033.201(a)(2))
    The CFPB requested comment on whether part 1033 should set forth an 
explicit prohibition against data provider conduct that would evade the 
objectives of CFPA section 1033, pursuant to the authority provided to 
the CFPB by CFPA section 1022(b)(1). More specifically, the CFPB 
requested comment on whether it should set forth explicit prohibitions 
against (1) actions that a data provider knows or should know are 
likely to interfere with a consumer's or authorized third party's 
ability to request covered data, or (2) making available information in 
a form or manner that a data provider knows or should know is likely to 
render the covered data unusable. The CFPB also requested comment on 
whether it should prohibit practices that might effectively make data 
unavailable or unusable to consumers and authorized third parties.
    The CFPB received only a few comments addressing whether its final 
rule should include a prohibition against evasion. Data provider 
commenters that addressed the issue opposed such a prohibition on the 
grounds that it would be premature because actual evasive activity 
remains

[[Page 90867]]

speculative. In contrast, third party commenters that addressed the 
issue supported inclusion of a prohibition against evasion. These 
commenters asserted that the proposed rule did not do enough to prevent 
data providers from interfering with access, such as by varying the 
performance of their interfaces, by implementing systems in non-
standard ways that limit interoperability, or by imposing excessive 
burdens or procedures that restrict or delay access to covered data 
depending on which third party is requesting access. They also asserted 
that there is a history of data provider efforts to delay or interfere 
with data access by authorized third parties.
    The CFPB has determined that is necessary and appropriate to 
include in part 1033 a prohibition against evasion, pursuant to the 
CFPB's authority under CFPA section 1022(b)(1). Accordingly, the CFPB 
is adopting Sec.  1033.201(a)(2) for the reasons discussed herein, 
which states that a data provider must not take any action (1) with the 
intent of evading the requirements of subparts B and C of part 1033; 
(2) that the data provider knows or should know is likely to render 
unusable the covered data that the data provider makes available; or 
(3) that the data provider knows or should know is likely to prevent, 
interfere with, or materially discourage a consumer or authorized third 
party from accessing covered data consistent with part 1033.
    The anti-evasion provision in Sec.  1033.201(a)(2) prohibits data 
provider conduct that is taken to evade the requirements of this final 
rule but which the CFPB may not, or could not, have fully anticipated 
in developing the rule. Part 1033 contains certain requirements that 
are targeted at potential data provider evasion and which rely in part 
on the CFPB's authority to prevent evasion under CFPA section 
1022(b)(1). However, the CFPB cannot anticipate every possible way in 
which data providers might seek to evade the requirements of part 1033. 
The CFPB has determined that Sec.  1033.201(a)(2) provides flexibility 
to address future data provider conduct taken to evade part 1033. The 
CFPB has also determined that the evasion prohibition will enhance the 
effectiveness of the final rule's specific, substantive requirements, 
and thereby preserve the consumer rights provided by part 1033. In 
adopting the evasion prohibition, the CFPB's judgment is informed by 
concerns that commercial actors might be able to use their market power 
and incumbency to privilege their concerns and interests above fair 
competition that could benefit consumers.
Current Data (Sec.  1033.201(b))
Proposal
    In the facilitation of payment transactions, data providers 
regularly refresh covered data, and such data are often necessary to 
enable common beneficial use cases, like transaction-based underwriting 
and personal financial management. Both depository and nondepository 
data providers typically make available recently updated transaction 
and account balance data through online or mobile banking applications. 
However, the CFPB received questions during the SBREFA process about 
whether data providers could simply provide the last monthly statement 
rather than being required to make available recent transactions and 
current account balance. Proposed Sec.  1033.201(b) interpreted CFPA 
section 1033(a) to require that, in complying with proposed Sec.  
1033.201(a), a data provider would need to make available the most 
recently updated covered data that it has in its control or possession 
at the time of a request. It also specified that a data provider would 
need to make available information concerning authorized but not yet 
settled debit card transactions. The preamble discussed how this debit 
card transaction situation was an example and asked for comment on 
whether the provision regarding current data would benefit from 
additional examples or other clarifications.
    When consumers make a request for information concerning a consumer 
financial product or service, the most recently updated information in 
a data provider's control or possession is likely to be most usable. 
However, the proposal explained that Sec.  1033.201(b) was not intended 
to limit a consumer's right to access historical covered data. The CFPB 
requested comment on whether the provision regarding current data would 
benefit from additional examples or other clarifications. The CFPB also 
requested input on issues in the market today with data providers 
making available only older information that is not fully responsive to 
a consumer's request.
Comments
    Commenters did not object to a general requirement to make 
available the most recently updated covered data in the data provider's 
control or possession at the time of the request. One large data 
aggregator stated that the proposed data requirement is sufficiently 
clear, especially because it explains that pending transaction 
information must be made available. Some data provider commenters 
asserted that the CFPB should not require information concerning 
authorized but not yet settled debit card transactions. One data 
provider commenter stated that requiring pending transaction 
information is like asking financial institutions to look into a 
crystal ball to predict the future. The commenter asserted that some 
merchants, such as gas stations and hotels, send pre-authorizations for 
dollar amounts higher than the actual transaction amounts to ensure 
funds are available. Data provider commenters raised similar concerns 
about pending transaction information with regards to covered data 
under Sec.  1033.211(a); those comments are discussed further below.
Final Rule
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing Sec.  
1033.201(b) as proposed with an edit to clarify the example of 
authorized but not yet settled transactions. The current data provision 
in Sec.  1033.201(b) requires that, in complying with paragraph (a) of 
this section, a data provider must make available the most recently 
updated covered data that it has in its control or possession at the 
time of a request. A data provider must make available information 
concerning authorized but not yet settled transactions. The CFPB notes 
that Sec.  1033.201(b) does not limit a consumer's right to access 
historical covered data.
    Finalizing this current data requirement helps ensure that data 
providers make available the most current data in their control or 
possession. Current data includes information regarding pending 
transactions that have not yet settled, including but not limited to 
pending debit card, credit card, and bill payment transactions. As 
discussed below with regards to transaction data in Sec.  1033.211(a), 
pending transaction information can be helpful for a variety of use 
cases, including personal financial management. Although such 
information may ultimately change, consumers and third parties may need 
access to pending transaction information in order to plan for imminent 
withdrawals. Such information may also be necessary for a consumer or 
third party to determine whether a consumer needs to deposit additional 
funds into an account or is approaching a credit limit and thus should 
delay additional purchases. Data providers could limit funds or credit 
availability in response to pending transactions, and a consumer may 
need to know about pending transactions to understand any associated 
changes in

[[Page 90868]]

available funds or credit. Given how authorized but not yet settled 
transactions may encompass a variety of payment types now and in the 
future, including credit card and certain bill pay transactions, and 
the risk that the debit card example might be misinterpreted to narrow 
the scope of this current data requirement, the final rule text removes 
the term ``debit card'' to more generally explain that a data provider 
must make available information concerning authorized but not yet 
settled transactions.
3. Covered Data (Sec.  1033.211)
In General
Proposal
    CFPA section 1033(a) generally requires data providers to make 
available, upon request, ``information in the control or possession of 
the covered person concerning the consumer financial product or service 
that the consumer obtained from such covered person, including 
information relating to any transaction, series of transactions, or to 
the account including costs, charges and usage data.'' The CFPB 
proposed in Sec.  1033.211 to implement this by defining the 
information that a data provider would need to make available under the 
general obligation to make covered data available in proposed Sec.  
1033.201(a). Proposed Sec.  1033.211 used the term covered data instead 
of the statutory term ``information'' and defined covered data to 
encompass several categories of information, as applicable: transaction 
information (including historical transaction information), account 
balance, information to initiate payment to or from a Regulation E 
account, terms and conditions, upcoming bill information, and basic 
account verification information.
    The proposal explained that this covered data definition would 
leverage existing operational and legal infrastructure and that 
requiring data that are generally made available to consumers today 
would support most beneficial consumer use cases. The CFPB noted that 
certain proposed categories of data, such as upcoming bill information, 
historical transaction information, information to initiate a transfer 
to or from a Regulation E account, and basic account identity 
information can support account switching because it can ease the 
account opening process, identify recurring payments that need to be 
set up at the new account, and transfer funds out of the old account. 
The CFPB requested comment on the benefits and data needs for consumers 
who are in the process of switching accounts.
    The CFPB preliminarily concluded that the covered data definition 
also would address several issues in the consumer-authorized data 
sharing system today, including clarifying which data must be made 
available under the consumer's CFPA section 1033 right. Currently, data 
providers provide authorized third parties with inconsistent access to 
data. Pricing terms, like APR, have been particularly contested. 
Inconsistent access to consumer-authorized data may prevent the 
development of new use cases and the improvement of existing use cases. 
In addition, inconsistent access to consumer-authorized data may be 
hindering standardization in the market, and therefore further 
hindering competition and innovation, as parties must negotiate 
individual categories of information to be made available.
    To address concerns about data providers restricting access to 
specific pieces of information, the proposed rule also gave examples of 
information that would fall within the covered data categories. The 
CFPB explained that these examples were illustrative and were not an 
exhaustive list of data that a data provider would be required to make 
available under the proposed rule. Under the proposed rule, a data 
provider would only have an obligation to make available applicable 
covered data; for example, a Regulation E financial institution 
providing only a Regulation E account would not need to make available 
a credit card APR or billing statement. The CFPB requested comment on 
whether additional data fields should be specified to minimize disputes 
about whether the information would fall within the covered data 
definition. The CFPB explained that, as proposed, the rule would allow 
flexibility as industry standards develop while minimizing ambiguity 
over the types of information that must be made available. The CFPB 
also requested comment on whether the proposed categories of 
information provide sufficient flexibility to market participants to 
develop qualified industry standards.
    The CFPB explained that these provisions would carry out the 
objectives of CFPA section 1033 of ensuring data are usable by 
consumers and authorized third parties by focusing on data that 
stakeholders report are valuable for third party use cases and that are 
generally under the control or possession of all covered persons. These 
provisions also would promote the use and development of standardized 
formats for carrying out the objectives of CFPA section 1033(d) by 
encouraging industry to focus format standardization efforts around 
these data categories.
Comments
    Data providers, third parties, and other commenters generally 
supported the CFPB's categories and examples approach to defining 
covered data, noting that the categories-plus-examples approach allows 
market flexibility. Commenters also stated that the proposed categories 
of covered data would leverage existing legal and operational 
infrastructure, and that these covered data are generally available on 
consumer interfaces today. However, some commenters requested 
additional clarity or narrowing of the covered data categories, such as 
explaining that the covered data obligations only apply with regards to 
the covered consumer financial product or service. A few data provider 
commenters stated that the data categories should be narrowed 
significantly because they asserted that covering categories like 
pending transactions, terms and conditions, and upcoming bill 
information would exceed the CFPB's CFPA section 1033 authority. A few 
data provider commenters requested more specificity, such as defining 
all required data fields.
    Some third party, consumer advocate, and other commenters requested 
that the CFPB expand the scope of covered data. For example, one 
consumer advocate commenter stated that covered data should include 
login usernames and passwords, challenge question responses, and 
customer service history. As another example, a third party commenter 
asked the CFPB to include a consumer identification number that could 
be linked to all consumer accounts, a consumer's date of birth, the 
date an account was opened, an account's transferability status, and 
other account status information. A large data aggregator asked the 
CFPB to specifically require data providers to provide the consumer's 
periodic statements as PDF documents. One commenter asked for 
clarification that, where a data provider is obligated to make 
available licensed information pursuant to the rule, the data provider 
does not provide a license to the authorized third party.
Final Rule
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing the 
proposed approach to covered data--that is, defining a list of 
categories of data that data providers must make available together 
with non-exhaustive examples of data fields that fall within those

[[Page 90869]]

categories. The categories and examples approach to covered data 
appropriately balances resolving areas of market disagreement with 
avoiding detailed specifications, such as defining all individual data 
fields, that could interfere with efficiency and innovation.
    The CFPB declines to expand the scope of covered data in this first 
rule to implement the substantive provisions of CFPA section 1033. The 
covered data definition in this final rule leverages existing 
operational and legal infrastructure: data providers generally make 
this covered data available through consumer interfaces, and existing 
laws require most of the categories of information to be disclosed 
through periodic statement and account disclosure requirements. 
Requiring data that are generally made available to consumers today 
supports most beneficial consumer use cases, including transaction-
based underwriting, payment credential verification, comparison 
shopping, account switching, and personal financial management. This 
covered data definition addresses several issues in the consumer-
authorized data sharing system today, including (1) maximizing consumer 
benefits by clarifying which data must be made available under the 
consumer's CFPA section 1033 right; (2) addressing potential data 
provider anticompetitive conduct and incentives to withhold particular 
data fields; and (3) promoting conditions for standardization in the 
market. These covered data fall within the CFPB's authority under 
section 1033 as they are information in the control or possession of 
the covered person concerning the consumer financial product or service 
that the consumer obtained from such covered person. With respect to 
whether the data provider necessarily provides a license to authorized 
third parties to licensed information required to be made available 
under the rule, the rule does not require data providers to do so. 
Authorized third parties are subject to the limitations on collection, 
use, and retention under Sec.  1033.421. At the same time, the rule 
requires covered data to be made available upon request, subject to the 
exceptions at Sec.  1033.221, including an exception for confidential 
commercial information. The commenter did not specify what type of 
information might be subject to a license, but it is unlikely that the 
covered data defined at Sec.  1033.211 would be subject to a license; 
and such information is generally made available to consumers today.
    Comments received on the proposed categories and examples, and 
changes made in the final rule, are discussed below.
Transaction Information (Sec.  1033.211(a))
    The CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.211(a) to make available 
transaction information as covered data, providing examples of amount, 
date, payment type, pending or authorized status, payee or merchant 
name, rewards credits, and fees or finance charges. The CFPB explained 
that this category would refer to information about individual 
transactions, and discussed SBREFA feedback from bank data providers to 
exclude pending transactions. The CFPB preliminarily concluded that 
pending transaction information would support a variety of beneficial 
use cases.
    The CFPB also proposed to include historical transaction 
information in the control or possession of the data provider. Proposed 
Sec.  1033.211(a) explained that a data provider would be deemed to 
make available sufficient historical transaction information for 
purposes of Sec.  1033.201(a) if it makes available at least 24 months 
of such information. The CFPB explained that historical transaction 
data supports a variety of use cases, including transaction-based 
underwriting, account switching, and personal financial management, but 
also observed that data providers do not make a consistent amount of 
historical transaction information available.
    The CFPB discussed how many stakeholders, including third party 
small entity representatives during the SBREFA process, have provided 
feedback that 24 months of historical transaction data would support 
the vast majority of consumer use cases. Some data provider and 
consumer advocate stakeholders have explained that 24 months would be 
consistent with the recordkeeping requirements in Regulation E and 
Regulation Z. The CFPB preliminarily concluded that setting a safe 
harbor at a minimum of 24 months would ensure that consumers have 
access to sufficient historical transaction data for common beneficial 
use cases, while providing compliance certainty to data providers. This 
length of time would also be consistent with the existing recordkeeping 
timeframes in Regulation E, 12 CFR 1005.13, and Regulation Z, 12 CFR 
1026.25. The CFPB also noted that data providers typically control or 
possess more than 24 months of historical transaction data and may 
continue to make more than 24 months available.
    The CFPB requested comment on whether the transaction information 
examples were sufficiently detailed and consistent with market 
practices, whether to retain the safe harbor for historical transaction 
data, and whether a different amount of historical transaction data 
would be more appropriate. The CFPB also requested comment on whether 
and how the rule should require that data providers make available 
historical data for other categories of information, such as account 
terms and conditions, whether such historical data are kept in the 
ordinary course of business today, and the use cases for such data.
Comments
    Commenters generally did not oppose inclusion of transaction 
information within the scope of covered data, with some data provider 
commenters asserting that this information is clearly required under 
CFPA section 1033. A few data provider commenters asked for additional 
clarification, such as whether the merchant name field refers to the 
merchant shown in the transaction description in the periodic statement 
or other sources like a web-based search about the merchant. Many data 
provider commenters opposed covering pending transaction information 
and reiterated concerns raised during the SBREFA process, including 
arguments that such information is not provided on monthly account 
statements, falls outside the CFPB's 1033 authority as it is not 
concerning a product that the consumer ``obtained'' from the data 
provider, is confusing for consumers, and could change at settlement so 
introduces error risk.
    Some commenters opposed the rewards credits example, stating that 
this information is proprietary, difficult to disclose, subject to 
misinterpretation, not disclosed today, and could erode the incentives 
of data providers to invest in merchant categorization tools. A few of 
these commenters asked the CFPB to limit the information to rewards 
balance, which they explained is typically made available today.
    Third party commenters generally supported the 24-month safe harbor 
for historical transaction data, stating that 24 months would support 
most use cases and is consistent with market practices today. A 
consumer advocate commenter supported the consistency between this 
period and Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.25(a) and Regulation E, 12 CFR 
1005.13(b), as both require retention of records for two years to 
document compliance with their requirements. One third party commenter 
asked the CFPB to require seven years of historical transaction data 
and a consumer advocate commenter suggested a period of three years. 
Some

[[Page 90870]]

data provider commenters and SBA Advocacy recommended that the safe 
harbor should be narrowed to a shorter period, such as six or 12 
months. A trade association representing data providers stated that the 
historical data provision would be inconsistent with section 1033(c), 
which states, ``Nothing in [CFPA section 1033] shall be construed to 
impose any duty on a covered person to maintain or keep any information 
about a consumer.'' 12 U.S.C. 5533(c).
Final Rule
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing the 
transaction information requirement as proposed, including the 
requirement to provide historical transaction information and the 24-
month safe harbor, with a minor edit to clarify that the example is 
referring to transaction date. The CFPB has determined that this 
pending transaction information is beneficial to consumers given how it 
supports use cases like personal financial management and fraud 
prevention, and is generally made available to consumers and third 
parties today. The CFPB has determined that a 24-month safe harbor 
period will support most use cases, will encourage more consistent data 
access across institutions, is consistent with market practices today, 
aligns with existing record retention requirements in Regulation E and 
Regulation Z, and appropriately balances providing compliance certainty 
and encouraging standard market practices with allowing flexibility in 
case there are data providers who do not control or possess 24 months 
of historical transaction information notwithstanding their other 
regulatory obligations. A shorter safe harbor, such as 6 months, would 
not sufficiently support common use cases like personal financial 
management and loan underwriting, which typically require more 
historical transaction information and may be particularly reliant on 
more data when a consumer's income has seasonal variations. Given that 
data providers can determine how much historical transaction 
information to make available according to how much is in the data 
provider's control or possession rather than by taking advantage of 
this safe harbor, this provision is consistent with CFPA section 
1033(c), which states that nothing in this section shall be construed 
to impose any duty on a covered person to maintain or keep any 
information about a consumer. However, the CFPB expects that data 
providers generally will have at least 24-months of historical 
transaction information in their control or possession given the 
existing Regulation E and Z record retention requirements.
Account Balance (Sec.  1033.211(b))
    The CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.211(b) to require data providers to 
make available account balance. The CFPB explained that in preamble 
that this category would include available funds in an asset account 
and any credit card balance. The CFPB requested comment on whether this 
term is sufficiently defined or whether additional examples of account 
balance, such as the remaining credit available on a credit card, are 
necessary.
    A few data provider and third party commenters asked for specific 
clarifications related to account balance, such as stating that account 
balance means ``current balance and statement balance,'' balance for 
credit cards means ``total balance owed,'' and that the CFPB should 
require currency information. One data provider commenter requested 
that the CFPB require detailed account balance specifications based on 
payment type given differences in how various payment networks 
determine the available balance, ledger balance, and settlement.
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing the 
requirement to provide account balance information as covered data. The 
CFPB has determined that account balance is not a commonly disputed 
category and that the market will benefit from flexibility in 
determining how to break down various account balances that apply to an 
account. However, the CFPB recognizes that a variety of account 
balances can apply to a product and use case--such as cash advance 
balance, statement balance, and current balance--and will monitor the 
market to ensure that data providers are making available this 
information in a manner usable by consumers and third parties.
Information To Initiate Payment to or From a Regulation E Account 
(Sec.  1033.211(c))
    In Sec.  1033.211(c), the CFPB proposed to require a data provider 
to make available information to initiate a payment to or from the 
consumer's Regulation E account. An example would have explained that 
this category includes a tokenized account and routing number that can 
be used to initiate an ACH transaction. It also explained that a data 
provider would be permitted to make available a tokenized account and 
routing number instead of, or in addition to, a non-tokenized account 
and routing number.
    The CFPB discussed how Regulation E account numbers are typically 
shared through consumer interfaces and are required to be disclosed 
under existing Regulation E periodic statement provisions. Account 
numbers and routing numbers can be used to initiate a transfer of funds 
to or from a Regulation E account over the ACH network, enabling common 
use cases like initiating payments and depositing loan proceeds. 
Although data providers have recourse under private contracts, private 
network rules, and commercial law to recover funds stolen by an 
unauthorized entity, many data providers have expressed concern about 
their Regulation E obligations and urged the CFPB to allow the sharing 
of TANs with authorized third parties. The CFPB discussed how these 
TANs, which are in use today, may help mitigate fraud risks to 
consumers and data providers. TANs allow data providers to identify 
compromised points more easily and revoke payment credentials on a 
targeted basis (rather than issuing a new account number to the 
consumer). However, some third parties have asserted that TANs do not 
support certain use cases, such as allowing third parties to print 
checks to pay vendors, initiating payments by check or wire, and 
detecting fraud.
    The CFPB preliminarily concluded that TANs allow third parties to 
enable most beneficial payment use cases while mitigating fraud risks, 
and therefore data providers should have the option of making TANs 
available to authorized third parties in lieu of full account and 
routing numbers. The CFPB noted that a TAN would only meet this 
requirement if it contained sufficient information to initiate payment 
to or from a Regulation E account. The CFPB requested comment on 
whether to allow TANs in lieu of non-tokenized account and routing 
numbers, including whether TANs would mitigate fraud risks and, in 
contrast, whether TANs have any limitations that could interfere with 
beneficial consumer use cases, and whether and how adoption and use of 
TANs might be informed by qualified industry standards. The CFPB also 
requested comment on whether data providers should also be required to 
make available information to initiate payments from a Regulation Z 
credit card.
Comments
    Some data providers and trade associations opposed the proposed 
requirement to make available information to initiate payment to or 
from a Regulation E account, stating that sharing such information 
would

[[Page 90871]]

introduce liability risks to data providers and consumers and asserting 
that payment initiation falls outside the CFPB's authority under CFPA 
section 1033. In contrast, a few other commenters stated that requiring 
account number would be appropriate and that they generally make this 
information available to consumers and third parties today. Some data 
provider commenters expressed their opposition to the growing usage of 
``pay-by-bank,'' a phrase sometimes used to describe consumer-to-
merchant payment alternatives to the debit and credit card networks. 
These commenters asserted that the ACH network is not appropriate for 
third party payments and therefore the CFPB should not require data 
providers to make available ACH payment initiation information. One 
trade association representing bank data providers asked the CFPB to 
clarify that this category does not include the ability to of a third 
party to initiate credit-push payments from a consumer's account.
    A few data provider commenters asked the CFPB to clarify the scope 
of the required information and whether account and routing number 
would satisfy the obligation. Data provider commenters also raised 
ambiguity and overbreadth concerns, asserting that this provision could 
be read to require wire transfer information and other payment 
information within the data provider's control or possession. Several 
data provider commenters opposed adding a requirement to make available 
information to initiate payment from a credit card account, asserting 
that requiring credit card number would introduce significant risks to 
consumers and data providers and that the CFPB had not sufficiently 
considered the risks of requiring such data. Some third party and data 
provider commenters stated that some account information is necessary 
to allow consumers and third parties to differentiate accounts, 
including situations where a consumer needs to identify which account 
they are permissioning access to, or when a third party is verifying a 
consumer's assets for loan underwriting.
    Many third party commenters supported including information to 
initiate payment, with some asking the CFPB to clarify that it includes 
other payment types beyond ACH. For example, one data provider 
commenter that is also a third party asserted that the category should 
be expanded to include all means to initiate payments, including debit 
card information and FedNow information.
    The CFPB received mixed comments on the allowance for TANs. 
Although some data providers focused their comments on concerns related 
to providing payment initiation information generally, others noted the 
potential security benefits of TANs and supported the proposed 
approach. Commenters supporting use of TANs stated that they enable 
data providers to identify the point of compromise in case of a breach; 
enable consumers and data providers to revoke compromised payment 
credentials on a targeted basis; enable data providers and consumers to 
limit risks of bank account fraud, as they can be restricted to a 
particular third party; and offer simple implementation and reliable 
technology given that they exist in the market today and can be easily 
adopted. One commenter stated that TANs would allow a data provider to 
create a token for a specific third party, so that any transactions on 
that token can be attributed to the third party. Commenters also stated 
that consumers can more easily revoke TANs when a payee is misusing the 
token or the consumer otherwise wants to revoke authorization, rather 
than needing to completely close an account and disrupt other account 
payment activity. Tokens also enable data providers to better identify 
the source of a cybersecurity incident or fraud, and would allow data 
providers to quickly stop fraud on a compromised token by restricting 
the ability to transact with that token. One large data aggregator 
stated that allowing TANs in lieu of non-tokenized account numbers 
could encourage further development of pay-by-bank functionality. This 
commenter also requested several significant modifications to the TAN 
option, such as allowing the third party to obtain the non-tokenized 
account and routing number if a TAN does not meet the third party's 
particular use case, and requiring data providers who share a TAN to 
also make available a unique user identifier. A payment network 
governance organization supporting TANs stated that industry does not 
tokenize routing numbers.
    Some third parties opposed allowing data providers to make 
available TANs in lieu of non-tokenized account and routing numbers as 
proposed. These commenters asked the CFPB to remove the allowance for 
TANs and only allow non-tokenized account and routing numbers, 
asserting that the ability to revoke TANs introduces risks of fraud 
perpetrated by consumers, TAN payments are more likely to fail, there 
is potential for data providers to issue TANs in an anticompetitive 
manner, TANs should be addressed in a separate rulemaking, and TANs do 
not support some consumer and third party use cases like generating 
paper checks, assessing the likelihood of payment failure, and 
interfering with fraud controls that track a particular account's 
payment activity. A few third parties also asserted that there is no 
market-wide standard for TANs and that TANs are not interoperable among 
the payment networks used today, including FedNow, Real-Time Payments 
(RTP), and ACH. These commenters differed on whether it would be 
appropriate to defer to a standard-setting body to determine the 
specifications for TANs. Some shared concerns that if the CFPB 
finalized the TAN option, the rule should adopt specific TAN revocation 
and expiration provisions. One trade association commenter and a third 
party commenter stated that non-tokenized account and routing number 
information is not that sensitive because it is printed on paper checks 
and already needs to be encrypted according to private network rules. A 
third party commenter asserted that industry-wide controls serve as 
better protective tools than optional use of TANs, as the ACH network 
already monitors for high returns rates in order to identify fraudsters 
running unauthorized debits against stolen ACH numbers, banks who 
sponsor third party senders into the ACH system are required to perform 
due diligence on those senders, consumers have rights under Regulation 
E to have their bank reverse an unauthorized payment, and banks 
regularly honor consumer claims of unauthorized account activity even 
if there is no evidence that the account activity was unauthorized.
Final Rule
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing the Sec.  
1033.211(c) category of information to initiate payment to or from a 
Regulation E account, including language allowing data providers to 
make available TANs in lieu of non-tokenized account numbers, with some 
clarifications.
    The CFPB has determined that information to initiate payment to or 
from a Regulation E account supports many essential consumer use cases 
such as account switching and making payments. The CFPB understands 
that consumers use account and routing numbers today to support use 
cases like signing up for direct deposit, making bill payments, and 
designating an account to accept loan proceeds. Consumers can provide 
this information directly to third parties, but making it available 
through a data provider has a variety of benefits, including accuracy

[[Page 90872]]

of the number sequence, ensuring that a correct and valid account is 
being accessed, and reduced friction in how quickly and easily that 
information shared. This information falls within the CFPB's authority 
under section 1033 as it is information in the control or possession of 
the covered person concerning the consumer financial product or service 
that the consumer obtained from such covered person. As discussed above 
in part IV.3, the rule does not require account write access or 
otherwise require payment initiation. Part IV.3 includes additional 
discussion of comments related to concerns about liability.
    Some data provider and trade association commenters asked the CFPB 
to clarify that pre-existing payment authorization requirements 
continue to apply. The CFPB agrees with commenters that regardless of 
whether a third party obtains information to initiate payment from a 
consumer or from an authorized third party, that third party would need 
to obtain appropriate payment authorization from the consumer. If the 
third party is not a depository institution, it would need to go 
through an originating depository institution to access the ACH payment 
network, and that originating depository institution continues to have 
due diligence, Know-Your-Customer, and private network obligations in 
terms of warranting that the third party's payment order is valid. The 
consumer's receiving depository financial institution and any other 
financial institutions in the transaction would also have Regulation E 
obligations, including error resolution obligations for any 
unauthorized payments. However, according to private network rules, the 
receiving depository financial institution can seek remediation for 
errors from the originating depository financial institution and third 
party that facilitate the erroneous payment.
    Given the benefits of making this information available, how it is 
required to be disclosed under Regulation E periodic statement 
requirements, how it is generally made available to consumers and third 
parties today, applicable Regulation E error protections for consumers 
in the event the information is misused, existing private network and 
safety and soundness obligations of originating depository institutions 
that facilitate a third party's payment, and the ability of the 
depository data providers to seek redress from originating depository 
institutions for erroneous payments, the CFPB has determined that data 
providers must make available information to initiate payment to or 
from a Regulation E account held by the data provider.
    Instead of using the term ``account and routing number'' to define 
this covered data category, the CFPB is finalizing the broader proposed 
``information to initiate payment'' language for two forward-looking 
reasons. First, the payments market may start to shift away from 
account and routing number as security and data practices evolve, and 
this broader language provides the market with flexibility to share 
data in accordance with those shifts. Second, since third parties 
typically use account and routing number to complete ACH payments 
today, using the ``account and routing number'' term may be 
misinterpreted to limit the types of payments that the information can 
be used to initiate. As the payment market evolves and more broadly 
adopts alternatives to the ACH network, such as RTP and FedNow, data 
providers may control or possess other payment initiation information 
that can be retrieved in the ordinary course of business--and 
accordingly such information would need to be made available. This 
information could include information sufficient to submit a request 
for payment. However, this provision is limited to information sharing 
and accordingly does not include the ability of a third party to access 
and push payment out of a consumer's account, also referred to as 
``write'' access.
    To clarify the scope of this information and address commenters' 
concerns about ambiguity, the CFPB is finalizing a clarification that 
this category is limited to information to initiate payment to or from 
a Regulation E account held directly or indirectly by the data 
provider. The final rule also explains that the requirement to make 
available this information does not apply to data providers who do not 
directly or indirectly hold the underlying Regulation E account. For 
example, a data provider that merely facilitates pass-through payments 
to third parties would not be required to make available account and 
routing number for the underlying Regulation E account.
    The CFPB notes that CFPA section 1033(b)(4) and the final rule at 
Sec. Sec.  1033.211(c) and 1033.221(d) only require data providers to 
share payment initiation information that they can retrieve in the 
ordinary course of business. In the current market, account number is 
clearly retrievable in the ordinary course of business given that it is 
typically shared through consumer and developer interfaces today and is 
required to be disclosed on the Regulation E periodic statement. The 
CFPB is not requiring payment initiation information that is not 
retrievable in the ordinary course of business. For purposes of this 
rule, the CFPB is making the determination that debit card numbers are 
data that are not retrievable in the ordinary course because of a 
unique historically-driven combination of factors that together suffice 
to put this data outside the scope of the rule, including the physical 
way--plastic cards--in which providers have typically chosen to make 
debit card credentials available to consumers, and the specific nature 
of how longstanding private payment network rules govern which entities 
can issue and control debit card payment credentials. As noted above, 
as the payment market adopts alternatives to the ACH network, such as 
RTP and FedNow, data providers may control or possess other payment 
initiation information that data providers can retrieve in the ordinary 
course of business--and accordingly such information would need to be 
made available.
    This provision does not impact other requirements for initiating 
payment or accessing the payment networks. Section 1033.211(c) requires 
that data providers make available information to initiate payment to 
or from a Regulation E account; payment authorization requirements 
continue to separately apply. The CFPB confirms that, in order to 
initiate payment, third parties would need proper payment authorization 
from the consumer subject to, without limitation, Regulation E 
preauthorized electronic fund transfer provisions and private network 
rule authorization requirements. The CFPB notes that, in order to 
access the payment network and initiate an ACH or similar payment, a 
third party would need an originating depository financial institution 
relationship. With regards to payment initiation, this provision does 
not alter due diligence and network requirements that apply to 
originating depository financial institutions providing access to the 
ACH payment network.
    The CFPB is also finalizing, with modifications, the proposed 
example that would allow data providers to share a tokenized account 
number instead of, or in addition to, a non-tokenized account number. 
This clarification is now moved into the rule text paragraph and no 
longer is labeled as an example. To address commenters' concerns about 
anticompetitive issuance of TANs, the rule text also now states that 
such tokenization is appropriate so long as it is not used as a pretext 
to restrict

[[Page 90873]]

competitive use of payment initiation information; the reference to 
``routing number'' has been removed in light of comments that routing 
number is not typically tokenized. TANs, used appropriately, can meet 
consumer use cases for electronic payments. The CFPB notes that use of 
TANs in conformance with applicable consensus standards can serve to 
indicate appropriate use. In addition, data providers have legitimate 
reasons to use TANs because they can protect the security of the 
relevant payment system and thus benefit its participants, including 
the consumer. In particular, TANs lower the risk of unauthorized 
transactions by limiting the potential for payment credentials to be 
misused for purposes the consumer did not intend or authorize, by 
helping to identify the source of a data breach, and by causing less 
disruption to consumers and the payment system when a credential is 
appropriately replaced. These benefits apply even though non-tokenized 
account numbers appear on paper checks and may need to be stored in an 
encrypted form according to private network rules. The CFPB notes that 
a data provider's provision of a TAN in lieu of non-tokenized account 
number is optional and that sometimes consumers share non-tokenized 
account and routing numbers directly with third parties.
    With regard to concerns from some third party commenters that TANs 
can interfere with fraud controls that track an account's payment 
history, third parties can use the account identifier described under 
Sec.  1033.211(f) to distinguish consumer accounts. However, the CFPB 
cautions that Sec.  1033.421(a) limits authorized third party use of 
covered data, including TANs, to what is reasonably necessary to 
provide the consumer's requested product or service. The general 
limitation standard, including uses that are reasonably necessary to 
protect against actual or potential fraud, is discussed below regarding 
Sec.  1033.421(a) and (c). TANs do allow consumers to more easily 
revoke their payment authorizations, but ease of revocation is a 
consumer benefit of TANs as it allows consumers to exercise more 
precise and immediate control over their account in the event that they 
have concerns about a payee. The interaction between TANs and 
revocation is discussed further in Sec.  1033.331(e). In response to a 
third party commenter's statement that industry controls are more 
effective than TANs, the CFPB notes that unauthorized payment fraud 
exists in the market today and the CFPB has taken public action against 
financial institutions that do not comply with their error resolution 
requirements.
    This final rule does not require data providers to grant access to, 
or facilitate payments on, any particular payment network. Accordingly, 
the CFPB does not require that TANs be interoperable across multiple 
payment networks. However, to the extent that data providers 
pretextually use TANs to frustrate consumers' ability to provide 
functioning payment initiation information to authorized third parties 
of their choice, such pretextual use would violate the anti-evasion 
provision at Sec.  1033.201(a)(2). The CFPB intends to monitor the 
market for any such pretextual use of the allowance for TANs, and will 
issue future guidance about the use of TANs in lieu of a full account 
number if needed.
Terms and Conditions (Sec.  1033.211(d))
    The CFPB proposed to require terms and conditions be made available 
as covered data in Sec.  1033.211(d). The CFPB explained that terms and 
conditions generally refer to the contractual terms under which a data 
provider provides a covered consumer financial product or service. The 
proposed rule included several non-exhaustive examples of information 
that would constitute terms and conditions.
    The CFPB discussed how certain terms and conditions, such as 
pricing, reward programs terms, and whether an arbitration agreement 
applies to the product, support beneficial use cases, like comparison 
shopping and personal financial management. Authorized third parties 
could use this information to help consumers more easily understand and 
compare the terms applicable to a covered consumer financial product or 
service. Since pricing is a fundamental term that is provided in 
account opening disclosures and change in terms disclosures, the CFPB 
proposed to include APR, APY, fees, and other pricing information in 
this category. The CFPB also discussed how this provision would benefit 
consumers because they may not be able to easily find this information 
through a consumer interface today, and some data providers may not be 
consistently sharing it with third parties. The CFPB requested comment 
on whether the final rule should include more examples of information 
that must be made available under terms and conditions.
Comments
    Data provider commenters generally did not dispute including APR 
and APY as examples of covered data, although a few opposed sharing 
that information. Some bank data provider and related trade association 
commenters opposed including information other than realized fees, such 
as applicable fee schedule. Some data provider commenters opposed 
including other examples in the final rule, such as rewards program 
terms, overdraft opt-in status, and whether an account was subject to 
an arbitration agreement, arguing that such information falls within 
the exceptions in Sec.  1033.221 or otherwise falls outside the CFPB's 
1033 authority as it is not related to the covered consumer financial 
product or service and is not cost, charges, or usage data. One credit 
union trade association stated that arbitration information will make 
consumers targets for predatory attorneys and contradicts statements in 
a separate CFPB rulemaking regarding covered form contracts used by 
nonbanks.
    Many data provider commenters raised technical and burden concerns 
about this category, stating that terms and conditions are not well 
suited to developer interfaces, as some terms cannot be reduced to 
numerical or binary data fields. Other stated concerns included: (1) 
lack of clarity over whether the rule is requiring a PDF of an entire 
terms and conditions document; (2) the number of terms and conditions 
documents applicable to an account, and whether all of them must be 
made available; (3) full terms and conditions documents are not useful 
or desirable for third parties to receive; (4) sharing full terms and 
conditions documents entails sharing of extraneous information; and (5) 
sharing current terms and conditions documents is overly burdensome and 
infeasible. A data aggregator commenter asserted that full terms and 
conditions contain some substantial legal terms that are neither 
supportive of any existing use cases nor easily transformed into a 
machine-readable format. This commenter requested that the CFPB 
identify the data elements that may be maintained in the terms and 
conditions and require that those elements--rather than the full terms 
and conditions--be made available in a machine-readable format.
    One bank trade association commenter asked the CFPB to allow data 
providers to share a PDF of the complete terms and conditions rather 
than through data fields, and another suggested allowing data providers 
to post terms on their website rather than making them available 
through the developer portal. A large data aggregator commenter 
explained that some third party interfaces allow PDF documents to be 
shared today.

[[Page 90874]]

Final Rule
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing the 
requirement to make available terms and conditions as covered data, 
with some additional limitations. The CFPB is aware that a variety of 
terms and conditions may impact a covered consumer financial product or 
service and some of those terms may not support current consumer use 
cases. The CFPB agrees with commenters that terms and conditions can be 
defined to provide compliance clarity to data providers and limit the 
extent of information they need to make available, while supporting 
current and potential use cases. Accordingly, the CFPB is finalizing a 
definition of the terms and conditions category limited to data in 
agreements evidencing the terms of the legal obligation between a data 
provider and a consumer for a covered consumer financial product or 
service, such as data in the account opening agreement and any 
amendments or additions to that agreement, including pricing 
information.
    The CFPB has determined that the proposed non-exhaustive examples 
of terms and conditions are helpful to clarify the terms and conditions 
category and minimize market disagreements about whether certain pieces 
of information must be made available. The applicable fee schedule is 
important information for comparison shopping and personal financial 
management as consumers need to anticipate what fees can be charged in 
order to evaluate a product's true cost and plan spending. Rewards 
programs are an important factor to a consumer's decision to obtain and 
use a consumer financial product or service, and the CFPB has 
determined that it is appropriate to require that these rewards program 
terms be made available under Sec.  1033.201(a)(1). Similarly, whether 
a consumer has opted into overdraft coverage or is subject to an 
arbitration agreement is relevant to how a consumer may decide to use 
or comparison shop for a product or service, including determining 
applicable fees and their rights with respect to that product or 
service. All of these non-exhaustive examples reflect the terms and 
conditions of the legal obligation between a data provider and a 
consumer for a covered consumer financial product or service. In 
response to a comment that arbitration information will be used to 
target consumers or otherwise relates to other CFPB policies related to 
form contracts, this information is not being collected by the CFPB and 
will not be shared unless the consumer chooses to do so.
    The CFPB has added credit limit to the list of non-exhaustive 
examples of terms and conditions. Credit limit is a key term that is 
typically determined and disclosed when a consumer obtains a Regulation 
Z credit card, and account agreements generally permit the provider to 
make changes to the credit limit. Although the CFPB asked for comment 
on credit availability with regard to account balance in Sec.  
1033.211(b), the CFPB has determined that it would be clearer to 
include credit limit as an example under this terms and conditions 
category. The CFPB is finalizing example 2 to Sec.  1033.211(d) to 
state that this category includes the applicable fee schedule, any APR 
or APY, credit limit, rewards program terms, whether a consumer has 
opted into overdraft coverage, and whether a consumer has entered into 
an arbitration agreement.
    In the current market, certain terms and conditions are commonly 
requested and made available as discrete data fields in developer 
interfaces. For example, discrete data fields for applicable APRs and 
APYs are typically shared in third party interfaces to support 
comparison shopping and personal account management. The CFPB expects 
that such commonly requested terms and conditions will continue to be 
made available as discrete callable data fields, as Sec.  1033.311 
requires developer interfaces to make data available in a standardized 
and machine-readable format that is widely used by other data providers 
and designed to be readily usable by authorized third parties.
    As use cases develop, third parties may seek access to terms and 
conditions that are not commonly used today. For example, a third party 
may need a specific term from the account opening agreement to provide 
a product or service requested by the consumer. If that term falls 
within terms and conditions as defined in Sec.  1033.211(d), the term 
is covered data and the provider's developer interface must make that 
data available. However, the data provider's developer interface would 
not necessarily need to make that specific term available as a discrete 
``callable'' data field. Instead, it could make it available within a 
broader section of the agreement or by making available the full 
account opening agreement, subject to the standardized and machine-
readable format requirements in Sec.  1033.311(b). As discussed in 
Sec.  1033.421(b), the general limitation on use and retention of 
covered data in Sec.  1033.421(a) would apply to that data. The CFPB 
concludes that given how some account agreement terms are not 
translatable to discrete numerical or binary data fields, it is 
appropriate for data providers to have flexibility in how they share 
terms and conditions information through the developer interface in a 
machine-readable format. (See part IV.C.2 for a discussion of the 
machine-readability requirement applicable to the developer interface.) 
Some data providers already appear to be sharing longer documents, such 
as statements, through developer interfaces today.\58\ The CFPB also 
concludes that because (1) most account agreement terms are publicly 
available, broadly applicable and not specific to a particular 
consumer, and (2) third parties are restricted in terms of what 
information they can use and retain under Sec.  1033.421(a), the 
privacy concerns are limited in this particular situation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See, e.g., Plaid, Statements, https://plaid.com/docs/statements/ (last visited Oct. 16, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Upcoming Bill Information (Sec.  1033.211(e))
    The CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.211(e) to require upcoming bill 
information to be made available as covered data. An example explained 
that upcoming bill information would include information about third 
party bill payments scheduled through the data provider and any 
upcoming payments due from the consumer to the data provider. For 
example, it would include the minimum amount due on the data provider's 
credit card billing statement, or a utility payment scheduled through a 
depository institution's online bill payment service. The CFPB 
preliminarily concluded that this information would be necessary to 
support personal financial management and consumers who are switching 
accounts. The CFPB requested comment on whether this category was 
sufficiently detailed to support situations where a consumer is trying 
to switch recurring bill payments to a new asset account, such as 
transferring a monthly credit card payment to a new bank.
Comments
    Some data provider commenters stated that upcoming bill information 
should not be included or should be significantly narrowed. These 
commenters asserted that this information is outside the CFPB's section 
1033 statutory authority, is burdensome to collect and share, is 
unrelated to the covered consumer financial product or service, is 
sensitive

[[Page 90875]]

because it contains payee data, is subject to change, and would not 
support account switching. A few data providers stated that it is 
unclear whether this information also includes payments scheduled 
through a third party, rather than being limited to bill payments 
scheduled through the data provider's platform. One data provider 
commenter stated that this information should be excluded as 
confidential commercial information because contracts with billers and 
bill service provider prohibit its disclosure. One commenter stated 
that this information should be limited to bills related to financial 
products, like mortgage bills.
Final Rule
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing this 
provision as proposed, including the example discussing information 
about third party bill payments scheduled through the data provider and 
any upcoming payments due from the consumer to the data provider. 
Upcoming bill information will support several important consumer use 
cases, including personal financial management and account switching. 
In response to comments regarding whether payments scheduled through a 
third party are also meant to be covered, the CFPB confirms that data 
providers are not required to make available information that is not in 
the control or possession of the data provider, and upcoming bill 
payments scheduled outside of the data provider's bill payment platform 
may not be in their control or possession and thus are not considered 
covered data. For example, when a consumer uses a cell phone company's 
website to schedule a bill payment from their bank account, the 
consumer's bank may not control or possess that information unless the 
cell phone company is sharing that preauthorization information with 
the bank. In contrast, a bank does control or possess information about 
a cell phone payment a consumer scheduled through the bank's consumer 
interface, and so is required to make available that bill payment 
information under Sec.  1033.201(a)(1). Contrary to commenters' 
assertions about the scope of the data access right, information about 
scheduled bill payments is squarely within the scope of CFPA section 
1033(a); specifically, upcoming bill payments relate directly to a 
``series of transactions''--i.e., the consumer's pattern of paying 
bills through the data provider. As discussed in the context of the 
general limitation standard in subpart D, third parties will be limited 
to collecting, using, and retaining covered data only to the extent it 
is reasonably necessary to provide the consumer's requested product or 
service, and therefore sharing of covered data will be limited to what 
is reasonably necessary. The CFPB notes that the general exceptions 
under CFPA section 1033(b) continue to apply, subject to the anti-
evasion provision in Sec.  1033.201(a)(2).
Basic Account Verification Information (Sec.  1033.211(f))
    The CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.211(f) to require basic account 
verification information be made available as covered data, which would 
be limited to the name, address, email address, and phone number 
associated with the covered consumer financial product or service.
    The CFPB discussed how certain pieces of identifying consumer 
information are commonly shared with third parties today to support 
several beneficial use cases. For example, a lender may seek to verify 
that loan disbursements will be deposited into an account that belongs 
to the consumer who is applying for the loan, or a mortgage underwriter 
may seek to verify that funds in a savings account belong to the 
mortgage applicant. On the other hand, third parties have raised 
concerns during the SBREFA process that data providers sometimes limit 
access to this information, and requested that the CFPB require that 
account verification information be shared.
    The CFPB preliminarily concluded that requiring data providers to 
share basic account verification information is necessary to ensure the 
usability of the covered data. For example, confirming that funds in a 
savings account do, in fact, belong to the consumer applying for a 
mortgage loan is necessary to determine whether the mortgage 
underwriter can rely on that information. Similarly, a loan provider is 
mitigating fraud risks when it ensures that the name, address, email 
address, and phone number on a recipient account matches the 
information of the loan applicant; matching information helps ensure 
that the funds are going to the correct account, and that the account 
opening notifications are not going to someone who stole the consumer's 
identity. Email addresses and phone numbers are increasingly being used 
as substitutes for consumer and account identifiers, particularly in 
the payments market where such information can be used to send a 
person-to-person payment. Accordingly, the CFPB preliminarily 
determined that limiting basic account verification information to the 
name, address, email address, and phone number associated with the 
covered consumer financial product or service would facilitate the most 
common use cases and is consistent with market practices today.
    The CFPB considered whether to include SSNs as part of basic 
account verification information, as SSNs are shared for some 
beneficial consumer use cases, like mortgage underwriting. However, the 
sharing of SSNs is not ubiquitous. The CFPB preliminarily concluded 
that SSNs may continue to be shared as appropriate but, given the risks 
to consumers, the proposed rule did not require data providers to make 
them available.
    The CFPB requested comment on whether the proposed basic account 
verification information category would accommodate or unduly interfere 
with beneficial consumer use cases. Given privacy and security concerns 
about unintentionally covering other kinds of information that are not 
typically shared today, the CFPB also requested comment on whether it 
is appropriate to limit this category to only a few specific pieces of 
information.
Comments
    Both consumer advocate and bank data providers generally supported 
the CFPB's approach to allowing some basic account verification 
information but limiting the category to specified data fields. These 
commenters agreed that this approach would appropriately balance 
supporting common beneficial use cases with limiting consumer privacy 
risks and data provider implementation costs. Many of these commenters 
also specifically requested that the CFPB not expand the category to 
include SSN or other personally identifiable information. A trade 
association representing data providers asked that the CFPB not expand 
this category to any information a data provider uses to securely 
authenticate the identity of its customer as part of a payment 
initiation process, such as a one-time verification code, as such 
information would pose significant risks to the integrity of various 
payment security standards and would conflict with the FFIEC's guidance 
on Authentication and Access to Financial Institution Services and 
Systems. Some data provider commenters opposed sharing any basic 
account verification information, asserting that such information 
presents fraud risks, has no benefit, and can be obtained directly from 
consumers. A trade association representing large depository data 
providers stated that additional account information could help 
consumers identify which account data they would

[[Page 90876]]

like to share. This commenter asserted that the CFPB could add ``number 
of the account'' to this category, with an allowance for use of tokens 
or truncated account numbers, and that it is common practice today for 
truncated account numbers to be used for this purpose. A third party 
commenter stated that account identification is necessary for 
underwriting so that a third party knows whether a consumer's assets 
have already been accounted for. Another third party commenter asked 
the CFPB to include a consumer identification number that could be 
linked to all consumer accounts, a consumer's date of birth, the date 
an account was opened, an account's transferability status, and other 
account status information.
Final Rule
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing basic 
account verification information as proposed, with the addition of 
certain account-identifier information for situations where a data 
provider directly or indirectly holds a Regulation E or Regulation Z 
account.
    The CFPB has determined that this approach sufficiently enables 
beneficial consumer use cases in the market today and avoids 
introducing risks from adding account verification information that is 
not commonly made available. The information specified in Sec.  
1033.211(f) supports a variety of use cases and thus is appropriate to 
require, including ensuring that loan proceeds are being deposited into 
an account belonging to the consumer, confirming that the consumer 
applying for credit does hold the asset accounts being used for 
underwriting, and reducing friction during account opening. In order to 
verify an account, third parties often need to match the information 
provided by the consumer with the identification information held by 
the data provider. Consumers and third parties may need to identify an 
account in order to permission access and differentiate a consumer's 
assets.
    In response to comments about the need to differentiate accounts, 
the CFPB is adding language to require that if a data provider directly 
or indirectly holds a Regulation E or Regulation Z account belonging to 
the consumer, the data provider must also make available a truncated 
account number or other identifier for that account. Given the more 
sensitive nature of other personally identifiable information requested 
by some commenters, such as SSN, at this time the CFPB is limiting this 
category to name, address, email address, and phone number associated 
with the covered consumer financial product or service, and, as 
applicable, account identifier. Data providers are permitted to provide 
additional information as appropriate and the CFPB will monitor whether 
to expand the scope of required information as account verification 
practices evolve.
4. Exceptions (Sec.  1033.221)
Proposal
    The CFPB proposed, in Sec.  1033.221, four exceptions to the 
requirement that data providers make data available under the proposed 
rule, along with some clarifications of data that do not fall within 
these exceptions. The exceptions would implement section 1033(b) of the 
CFPA by restating the statutory language and providing certain 
interpretations. The first exception was for any confidential 
commercial information, including an algorithm used to derive credit 
scores or other risk scores or predictors. Some data providers have 
asserted that certain account information falls within this statutory 
exception because such information is an input or output to a 
proprietary model. The CFPB proposed to clarify that such information 
would not qualify for this exception merely because it is an input to, 
or an output of, an algorithm, risk score, or predictor. For example, 
APR and other pricing information are sometimes determined by an 
internal algorithm or predictor, but such information would not fall 
within this exception.
    The second exception was for any information collected by a data 
provider for the purpose of preventing fraud or money laundering, or 
detecting, or making any report regarding other unlawful or potentially 
unlawful conduct. During the SBREFA process, a third party stated that 
at least one data provider has cited this exception when declining to 
provide general account information, such as the name on the account. 
To avoid misuse of this exception where information has multiple 
applications, the CFPB proposed to clarify that information collected 
for other purposes does not fall within this exception. For example, 
name and other basic account verification information would not fall 
within this exception.
    The third exception was for information required to be kept 
confidential by any other provision of law. Information would not 
qualify for this exception merely because the data provider must 
protect it for the benefit of the consumer. The proposed example to 
this exception stated that the data provider cannot restrict access to 
the consumer's own information merely because that information is 
subject to privacy protections.
    The final exception was for any information that a data provider 
cannot retrieve in the ordinary course of its business with respect to 
that information.
    The CFPB explained that the definition of covered data in Sec.  
1033.211 would generally include information made available to 
consumers and authorized third parties today or that is required to be 
disclosed under other laws. The CFPB noted that the exceptions proposed 
in Sec.  1033.221 were narrow, and the information specified as covered 
data would not typically qualify for any of these exceptions.
    The CFPB requested comment on whether it should include additional 
examples of data that would or would not fall within the exceptions, 
and whether this provision sufficiently mitigates concerns that data 
providers may cite these exceptions on a pretextual basis.
Comments
    Comments on the exceptions took a variety of positions. With 
respect to the CFPB's implementation of the statutory exceptions 
overall, some data provider and related trade association commenters 
asked the CFPB to add more examples of excepted information and expand 
the exception provisions. These commenters stated that the statutory 
exceptions should be interpreted broadly to allow data providers 
discretion in denying access to covered data. One commenter stated that 
it is premature to have concerns about data provider abuse of the 
exceptions. A bank trade association commenter asked the CFPB to except 
any data that is not available in the consumer interface, explaining 
that such data pose an undue burden on financial institutions and 
introduce data security risks and operational challenges. In contrast, 
many third party commenters asserted that the CFPB should interpret the 
exceptions narrowly as they are vulnerable to pretextual use by data 
providers. One large bank trade association commenter asked the CFPB to 
finalize the exceptions as exemptions to make clear that data described 
under the statutory exceptions are not covered by the rule.
    On the first proposed exception for confidential commercial 
information, many data provider commenters asserted that rewards 
programs terms and credits are proprietary and should fall under this 
exception, and that the rule should prohibit reverse engineering. A 
large data aggregator also

[[Page 90877]]

requested that the rule prohibit reverse engineering of confidential 
commercial information, suggesting that such a prohibition could be 
incorporated into the data privacy protections. A trade association 
representing data providers asked that the CFPB distinguish between 
data that might be useful for a consumer for consumer purposes versus 
data that would be of primarily commercial value (such as metadata 
regarding the exact time and place of transactions), and stated that 
data providers should not be required to reveal analytically enriched 
data if the consumer does not ordinarily see such data and cannot be 
said to substantially rely upon it when making decisions about the 
selection of consumer products or services. This commenter asserted 
that the exception must make clear that it also extends to information 
that cannot be shared for contractual reasons and attorney work product 
related to an account and any active litigation.
    A large data aggregator commenter supported the proposed examples 
for the first exception as sufficient and appropriate, stating that the 
proposed clarification that the exception for proprietary algorithms 
only applies to the algorithm itself, and not to the covered data that 
goes into or is an output from the algorithm, appropriately balances a 
data provider's right to protect its trade secrets and intellectual 
property with a consumer's right to data access and portability. Absent 
this clarification, the commenter cautioned that the exception could 
swallow the rule, explaining that today myriad terms, conditions, 
rates, fees, and features of an account are the result of some 
proprietary algorithmic decision making by the financial institution. A 
few consumer advocate commenters asked the CFPB to narrow this 
exception to clarify that credit scores and other risk scores are not 
considered confidential commercial information, and therefore must be 
made available.
    On the second proposed exception for any information collected by a 
data provider for the purpose of preventing fraud or money laundering, 
or detecting, or making any report regarding other unlawful or 
potentially unlawful conduct, a bank trade association commenter 
asserted that it was too narrow and should be revised to remove the 
term ``sole.'' This commenter explained that very limited information 
is collected solely for fraud prevention. Another data provider trade 
association offered examples of information it believes fall within the 
statutory exception, such as information related to security incidents 
and internal account flags, and requested that the CFPB reconsider its 
approach to this exception.
    On the third exception for information required to be kept 
confidential by any other provision of law, a few data provider 
commenters requested that the exception be expanded. One asked for 
examples of laws that would require a data provider to withhold 
information from a consumer, and a few urged the CFPB to add a good 
faith compliance standard for data providers to withhold information if 
they reasonably believe that the information must be kept confidential 
by law.
    On the fourth exception regarding information that a data provider 
cannot retrieve in the ordinary course of its business, one research 
institute commenter requested that it be narrowed as it may allow data 
providers to find loopholes or shield themselves from disclosing 
information that they should be required to provide to consumers. A 
data aggregator commenter requested changes so that data providers 
cannot evade their obligations to provide covered data by deliberately 
making it difficult to retrieve data in the ordinary course of 
business. The commenter suggested adding a presumption that all covered 
data are retrievable in the ordinary course at least for a period 
stretching from the present back at least 24 months and adopt an 
interpretation of the phrase ``in the ordinary course'' that relies on 
an objective industry standard and would not permit a data provider to 
adopt an unreasonable policy to evade data access obligations. A data 
provider commenter asked the CFPB to add examples of information that 
are within the scope of this exception, explaining that it believes 
terms and conditions and payments scheduled through third parties would 
be excepted. Another data provider commenter stated that 24 months of 
historical transaction data are not retrievable in the ordinary course 
of business, and that a shorter safe harbor of six months would be more 
appropriate.
    One Member of Congress commenter cited the discussion in the 
proposal of how the exceptions proposed in Sec.  1033.221 are narrow 
and that proposed Sec.  1033.351(b)(1) would require a data provider to 
create a record of what covered data are not made available pursuant to 
an exception in proposed Sec.  1033.221 and explain why the exception 
applies. This commenter asserted that proposed Sec.  1033.221 and the 
interaction with proposed Sec.  1033.351(b)(1) will ensure that 
consumer data are not withheld for anticompetitive reasons.
Final Rule
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing the 
exceptions, including the examples of data that do not fall within the 
exceptions, as proposed. The CFPB has concluded that additional 
examples of information that fall within the exceptions, as requested 
by some commenters, are not necessary at this time. The CFPB intends to 
monitor the market for pretextual use of the CFPA section 1033 
exceptions and more generally for violations of the prohibition against 
evasion in Sec.  1033.201(a)(2).With respect to a commenter's request 
to use rulemaking authority to reclassify the statutory term 
``exceptions'' to ``exemptions,'' the commenter did not explain why 
this change from the statute was necessary to clarify that these data 
types are not covered by the rule. The CFPB is thus finalizing the 
heading for Sec.  1033.221 using the statutory language.
Confidential Commercial Information
    Final Sec.  1033.221(a) restates the exception at section 
1033(b)(1) for any confidential commercial information, including an 
algorithm used to derive credit scores or other risk scores or 
predictors. Final Sec.  1033.221(a) further clarifies that information 
does not qualify for this exception merely because it is an input to, 
or an output of, an algorithm, risk score, or predictor. Final Sec.  
1033.221(a) includes an example of APR and other pricing terms as data 
that are sometimes determined by an internal algorithm or predictor but 
do not fall within this exception.
    With respect to comments that rewards programs terms, rewards 
credits, and terms and conditions are proprietary and should fall under 
the first exception for confidential commercial information, the CFPB 
has determined that these data do not fall within the definition of 
confidential commercial information. Today, rewards program terms are a 
factor in how consumers decide to use and select credit cards. They 
concern the covered consumer financial product or service obtained from 
the data provider, and they support important consumer use cases like 
comparison shopping, personal financial management, and account 
switching. These terms are commonly shared with consumers, just like 
general terms and conditions for an account--similarly, the credits 
that a consumer has in a rewards program are shared with the consumer, 
and are necessary in order for the consumer to be able to use those 
rewards. Because

[[Page 90878]]

these data are shared with consumers, must be shared for rewards 
programs and products to function, and are necessary for consumers to 
comparison shop and make informed choices about how to use their 
account, they are not confidential commercial information.
    With respect to a commenter that suggested the CFPB should further 
define confidential commercial information on the basis of data's 
utility to a consumer relative to its commercial value to a data 
provider, the CFPB has determined that this suggested additional 
restriction of data availability is inconsistent with Congress's 
delineation of limited exceptions to the consumer access data right. 
Congress did not include an additional balancing test in CFPA section 
1033, and imposing one in this final rule would risk subverting 
consumers' right to access data. However, the CFPB notes that the Sec.  
1033.421(a) general limitation standard limits third parties' 
collection, use, and retention of covered data to that which is 
reasonably necessary to provide the product or service that the 
consumer requested. If particular data points are not relevant to any 
product or service that a consumer might request, then a third party 
would generally not be able to request those data points. In this way, 
the final rule already accommodates the commercial usefulness of 
covered data without the inclusion of an explicit balancing test.
    With respect to information that cannot be shared for contractual 
reasons and attorney work product related to an account and any active 
litigation, commenters did not identify specific items of covered data 
that would potentially fall under these conditions. A data provider 
cannot limit a consumer's access to data simply because the consumer 
and the data provider are engaged in a legal dispute. While there is a 
separate exception for data that must be kept confidential by any other 
provision of law, as discussed later in this section this exception 
does not apply merely because the data provider must protect it for the 
consumer. Furthermore, if a data provider were to structure legal 
arrangements with the intent of subjecting covered data to this 
exclusion with the likely effect of frustrating consumers' data access 
rights, such behavior could violate the anti-evasion provision in final 
Sec.  1033.201(a)(2).
    For a discussion of comments related to reverse engineering of 
covered data, see part IV.D.3.
Information Collected for the Sole Purpose of Preventing Fraud and 
Certain Other Unlawful Activities
    Final Sec.  1033.221(b) restates the exception at section 
1033(b)(2) any for information collected by the data provider for the 
``sole'' purpose of preventing fraud or money laundering, or detecting, 
or making any report regarding other unlawful or potentially unlawful 
conduct. Final Sec.  1033.221(b) further clarifies that information 
collected for other purposes does not fall within this exception, and 
states that, for example, name and other basic account verification 
information do not fall within this exception. The final rule retains 
the word ``sole'' because the CFPB understands that data providers use 
a variety of data in the context of identifying and preventing unlawful 
activity, and therefore expanding the exception to cover all 
information used for these purposes would create an exception that 
risks swallowing the rule.
    Similarly, basic account verification information is necessary to 
support a variety of use cases for which the third party needs to 
ensure that the name on the account matches the name of the consumer. 
Expanding the exception to cover this kind of basic data--which is 
collected by data providers for a variety of reasons unrelated to 
preventing unlawful activity--would frustrate consumers' data access 
right in a way that would conflict with Congress's intent.
Information Required To Be Kept Confidential
    Final Sec.  1033.221(c) restates the exception at section 
1033(b)(3) for any information required to be kept confidential by any 
other provision of law. Final Sec.  1033.221(c) further clarifies that 
information does not qualify for this exception merely because the data 
provider must protect it for the consumer. Final Sec.  1033.221(c) also 
states, as an example, that the data provider cannot restrict access to 
the consumer's own information merely because that information is 
subject to privacy protections. In response to comments requesting that 
the CFPB identify laws that might require information to be kept 
confidential, the final rule does not include specific examples, 
because of the potential for both over- and under-inclusiveness. 
However, the CFPB notes that, as an example, financial institutions are 
prohibited from notifying an individual that a suspicious activity 
report has been filed against them, and this might constitute an 
example of when a data provider would be required to keep that specific 
information confidential.
    In response to comments requesting a good faith compliance standard 
for data providers to withhold information if they reasonably believe 
that the information must be kept confidential by law, the CFPB notes 
that, under final Sec.  1033.351(b)(1), indicia of whether a data 
provider's record of data fields it makes available complies with the 
policies and procedures requirement of final Sec.  1033.351(b) include 
whether that record conforms to a consensus standard. Thus, to the 
extent that a data provider conforms with a consensus standard in 
making particular data fields available (and not making other data 
fields available), conformance with the consensus standard would carry 
some indication of compliance.
Information That Cannot Be Retrieved in the Ordinary Course of Business
    Final Sec.  1033.221(d) restates the exception at CFPA section 
1033(b)(4) for any information that the data provider cannot retrieve 
in the ordinary course of its business with respect to that 
information.
    Terms and conditions information is typically retrievable in the 
ordinary course of business as data providers are required to disclose 
and make available such information under other laws, including but not 
limited to Regulation E and Regulation Z.\59\ The other suggestions 
raised by commenters--such as security incident information and one-
time verification codes--generally do not fall within the covered data 
definition in Sec.  1033.221 or otherwise are not in the control or 
possession of the data provider. For example, as discussed above in 
part IV.B.3 with respect to upcoming bill information, bill payments 
scheduled directly with merchants or other payees--and not on the data 
provider's bill payment platform--are not typically in the control or 
possession of the data provider. Generally, a data provider would not 
be permitted to categorically refuse access to data specifically 
included in the definition of covered data under this exception, absent 
some additional showing that the data were

[[Page 90879]]

not retrievable in the ordinary course of its business with respect to 
that information. The CFPB understands from comments that historical 
terms and conditions information may sometimes be stored as image 
files. If it would require extraordinary, manual effort to collect and 
translate this information into a machine-readable, electronic form, 
that information may not be retrievable in a data provider's ordinary 
course of business with respect to that information. However, the CFPB 
does not expect current terms and conditions to be subject to any such 
exception given the legal requirements noted above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ For example, 12 U.S.C. 4303(a) of the Truth in Savings Act 
(TISA), 12 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. states: ``Each depository institution 
shall maintain a schedule of fees, charges, interest rates, and 
terms and conditions applicable to each class of accounts offered by 
the depository institution, in accordance with the requirements of 
this section and regulations which the [CFPB] shall prescribe.'' 
Further, 12 U.S.C. 4305(a) requires a depository institution to make 
the required schedule available to any person upon request. TISA is 
implemented in the CFPB's Regulation DD (12 CFR part 1030) and the 
NCUA's 12 CFR part 707.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter asked the CFPB to lower the historical transaction 
data safe harbor in Sec.  1033.211(a) from 24 months to 6 months 
because it does not believe that 24 months of transaction data are 
retrievable in the ordinary course of business. As discussed above in 
Sec.  1033.211(a), the CFPB understands that data providers generally 
retain 24 months of transaction data according to their record 
retention requirements in Regulation E and Regulation Z. If a data 
provider cannot retrieve 24 months of data in the ordinary course of 
business notwithstanding its other compliance obligations, it cannot 
take advantage of the safe harbor but would be able to make available 
less information. With regard to comments requesting that this section 
include a prohibition on reverse engineering, such a prohibition would 
not be appropriate for exceptions to the requirement to make available 
covered data. However, third party use of data for reverse engineering 
of proprietary algorithms is addressed in the discussion of Sec.  
1033.421(a)(2).
    In response to the comments suggesting that the final rule narrow 
this exception to avoid evasion of the final rule, this concern is 
addressed in the anti-evasion provision in final Sec.  1033.201(a)(2). 
A data provider that designs its systems to make data less available to 
access, with the intent of evading the requirements of subparts B and C 
of part 1033, or that the data provider knows or should know is likely 
to render unusable covered data or is likely to prevent, interfere 
with, or materially discourage a consumer or authorized third party 
from accessing covered data, would violate the anti-evasion provision.

C. Subpart C--Data Provider Interfaces; Responding to Requests

1. Overview
    Subpart C establishes how covered data are to be made available and 
the mechanics of data access, including basic operational, performance, 
and security standards, and other policies and procedures. In 
particular, certain provisions ensure that data providers make covered 
data available to authorized third parties through functionality fit 
for that purpose--labeled a ``developer interface''--rather than 
through screen scraping of a consumer interface. Other provisions 
require data providers to disclose information that helps third parties 
request data and to establish and maintain written policies and 
procedures reasonably designed to achieve the objectives of subparts B 
and C. In addition, to prevent data providers from inhibiting 
consumers' exercise of their statutory data access right, subpart C 
prohibits data providers from charging fees for establishing or 
maintaining the required interfaces or for receiving requests or making 
available covered data in response to requests.
2. General Requirements (Sec.  1033.301)
Requirement To Maintain Interfaces (Sec.  1033.301(a))
    The CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.301(a) to require a data provider 
subject to the requirements of part 1033 to maintain a consumer 
interface and to establish and maintain a developer interface. The CFPB 
preliminarily determined that the requirement would carry out the 
objectives of CFPA section 1033 by ensuring consumers and authorized 
third parties can make requests for and receive timely and reliable 
access to covered data in a usable electronic form. Proposed Sec.  
1033.301(a) also stated that the consumer interface and the developer 
interface must satisfy the requirements set forth in Sec.  1033.301 
(i.e., Sec.  1033.301(b) and (c), discussed in this part IV.C.2 below) 
and that the developer interface must satisfy the additional 
requirements set forth in Sec.  1033.311 (discussed in part IV.C.3 
below).
Requirement To Maintain Consumer Interface
    Under the CFPB's proposal, not every interface that a data provider 
might offer--such as a mobile banking portal and an online banking 
portal--would have been required to satisfy all of the proposed 
requirements that would apply to consumer interfaces (discussed below), 
as long as collectively the provider's interfaces satisfy the 
requirements. The CFPB requested comment on whether data providers 
inform consumers using mobile banking applications that additional 
information might be available through providers' online banking 
applications.
    All commenters, including data providers, third parties, and 
consumer advocate commenters, who addressed the requirement to maintain 
a consumer interface supported it. Data providers stated that they 
maintain those interfaces today. Consumer advocates suggested that the 
CFPB adopt additional requirements for consumer interfaces, such as 
being intuitive or user friendly. They also suggested that the rule 
require a data provider to disclose in the consumer interface the third 
parties accessing a consumer's covered data and, if the data provider 
provides a mechanism for the consumer to revoke such access, how the 
consumer can revoke such access. They argued that these disclosures are 
important to facilitate consumer awareness of the third parties with 
which they have shared their data and consumer action if they do not 
want the data sharing to continue. In response to the CFPB's request 
for comment, they requested that the CFPB require a data provider to 
provide through its mobile application the same information as through 
a desktop application, because many low- and moderate-income consumers 
only have a mobile phone for internet access.
    For the reasons discussed herein, final Sec.  1033.301(a) requires 
a data provider to maintain a consumer interface. This is necessary and 
appropriate to implement the statutory requirement in CFPA section 
1033(a) that data providers make covered data available to consumers in 
a usable electronic form. The requirement will impose limited cost on 
data providers because they generally maintain these interfaces today. 
It will ensure that consumers benefit from ready access to their own 
financial data.
    The CFPB declines to adopt the additional requirements for the 
interfaces suggested by consumer advocates. Under the final rule, as 
under the proposal, not every data provider consumer interface must 
satisfy the requirements of part 1033, as long as collectively the 
provider's consumer interfaces satisfy the requirements. Competition 
among data providers for customers will continue to appropriately 
incentivize them to invest in and improve the various consumer 
interfaces they make available to consumers. In contrast, the CFPB is 
adopting more prescriptive requirements for developer interfaces in 
Sec.  1033.311 (discussed below) because consumers are unlikely to 
comparison shop among data providers based on the performance of those 
interfaces.

[[Page 90880]]

Requirement To Maintain Developer Interface
    The CFPB received numerous comments related to its proposal in 
Sec.  1033.301(a) to require data providers to establish and maintain a 
developer interface. Third party commenters requested clarification as 
to how the provision would apply to a service provider that the data 
provider employs to establish and maintain the data provider's 
developer interface. More specifically, they requested that the rule 
clarify that, in such a situation, the data provider's service provider 
may not impose any conditions or restrictions on interface access that 
the data provider itself may not impose and must comply with all rule 
provisions applicable to developer interfaces. Commenters of all 
types--including third parties, consumer advocates, research and 
academic institutions, data providers and associations thereof--
expressed general support for the CFPB's framework in part 1033 of 
moving away from screen scraping for data access, but requested 
technological neutrality for how a data provider may implement the 
required interface. Some commenters, including both data providers and 
third parties, stated that implementing APIs would be overly difficult 
or costly for some data providers such as small depository 
institutions. These commenters requested that the rule allow data 
providers the choice of implementing a developer interface, permitting 
screen scraping of the consumer interface, or prohibiting access to 
covered data by all third parties.
    Some data provider commenters and a data aggregator questioned or 
objected to the CFPB's proposal to require data providers to establish 
a developer interface. These commenters asserted that the requirement 
is beyond the authority CFPA section 1033 provides to the CFPB and that 
it is in their view not appropriate for a regulation, as opposed to a 
statute, to require entities to implement what they characterized as a 
new financial product such as a developer interface. In particular, 
these commenters asserted that the CFPB had incorrectly interpreted the 
term ``consumer'' to include consumers' third party representatives. 
They also asserted that the CFPB lacked authority to require data 
providers to enable ``open banking,'' which they described as a matter 
of vast economic and political significance subject to the ``major 
questions'' doctrine.
    One commenter stated that Congress could not have intended this 
broad result because in 2010, when Congress adopted the CFPA, the data 
sharing market did not include the wide variety of third party fintech 
firms that the CFPB proposed to include as consumers. The commenter 
also stated that the proposal was inconsistent with the structure of 
CFPA section 1033 because it would require a developer interface that 
is exclusively accessible to third parties and a consumer interface 
that is exclusively accessible by consumers. The commenter also 
maintained that Congress would not have intended section 1033 to 
authorize the CFPB to launch open banking unilaterally without 
providing for a greater role for other agencies, beyond what it 
described as a narrow degree of consultation about certain topics. The 
commenter did not believe the CFPB had given those agencies a 
meaningful role in the process. Finally, the commenter stated that 
efforts to create an open banking system would restrict technological 
innovation and consolidate the number of incumbent data aggregators in 
the market.
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing the 
requirement in Sec.  1033.301(a) that a data provider maintain a 
developer interface. No change in substance from the proposal is 
intended or effected by simplifying the proposed rule's ``establish and 
maintain'' to ``maintain'' in final Sec.  1033.301(a). Under the 
proposed rule, a data provider was exempt from the proposal if it did 
not have a consumer interface. The CFPB proposed that a data provider 
with a consumer interface but without a developer interface would be 
required to ``maintain'' the consumer interface and to ``establish and 
maintain'' a developer interface. Under final part 1033, the question 
of whether a data provider has a consumer interface is not relevant to 
determining whether the data provider is subject to part 1033. A data 
provider subject to part 1033 must have functionality for making 
covered data available to consumers (a consumer interface) and 
functionality for making covered data available to authorized third 
parties (a developer interface). If a data provider subject to part 
1033 does not currently have such functionality for authorized third 
parties, the part 1033 requirement that the data provider maintain such 
functionality--a ``developer interface''--includes and incorporates the 
proposed requirement that the provider establish the developer 
interface.
    The requirement is necessary and appropriate to ensure data 
providers make available covered data upon request in a usable 
electronic form to third parties that are authorized to access covered 
data on behalf of consumers. The developer interface requirements in 
the rule, including the requirement that the interface not allow third 
parties to access covered data using consumer credentials, are not a 
requirement to use any specific technology to enable data access. As 
discussed under the definitions above, the term ``developer interface'' 
is simply a label of convenience for data access functionality that 
meets rule requirements. The technological means by which data 
providers choose to achieve that functionality is entirely up to 
providers.
    The requirements and prohibitions in subparts B and C of part 1033 
apply to data providers. A data provider may not by contract transfer 
its legal obligation to comply with the part 1033 requirements and 
prohibitions to a vendor. A data provider may enter into a contract 
with a vendor under the terms of which the vendor agrees to perform 
activities that satisfy the data provider's compliance obligations 
under part 1033, but in that situation it remains the data provider's 
legal responsibility to comply with the requirements and prohibitions 
of subparts B and C of part 1033, and the data provider violates part 
1033 if its vendor fails to fully fulfill the relevant compliance 
obligations. For example, if the data provider and its vendor 
collectively fail to fully fulfill one or more of the data provider's 
obligations under part 1033, the CFPB (or other regulator) may 
supervise and enforce that compliance failure against the data 
provider.
    In final part 1033, the CFPB has taken steps to ensure the 
feasibility and technological neutrality of the Sec.  1033.301(a) 
requirement that a data provider maintain a developer interface, 
including for small data providers. The final rule does not require the 
use of any specific technology in order to comply. Specifically, in 
Sec.  1033.311(e) (discussed in part IV.C.3 below), the CFPB is 
incorporating an example that makes explicit that a data provider may 
satisfy its obligation to maintain the required data access by entering 
into a contract with its service provider (for example, a core 
processor) pursuant to which the service provider screen scrapes 
covered data from the data provider's consumer interface and makes the 
covered data available to authorized third parties through a developer 
interface that the service provider maintains on behalf of the data 
provider. The CFPB believes that this ``self-scraping'' approach will 
meaningfully reduce the burden of the developer interface requirement 
through economies of scale: a small number of larger service providers 
will be able to

[[Page 90881]]

maintain developer interfaces on behalf of a large number of smaller 
data providers. In this situation, as discussed above, the obligation 
for the developer interface to satisfy the requirements and 
prohibitions of part 1033 nonetheless continues to rest with the data 
provider.
    The CFPB has determined that the CFPA provides the CFPB with 
authority to require data providers to maintain developer interfaces 
and that the rule does not run afoul of the major questions doctrine. 
As proposed (and as discussed above), Sec.  1033.131 defines 
``developer interface'' as functionality through which a data provider 
receives requests for covered data from authorized third parties and 
makes covered data available electronically in response to the 
requests. Requiring data providers to maintain this functionality does 
not constitute requiring them to provide a new consumer financial 
product or service; instead, it merely requires them to maintain a 
secure mechanism through which they make consumers' covered data 
available to consumers' authorized third party representatives. 
Elsewhere in this document, the CFPB estimates the costs part 1033 will 
impose on data providers (including but not limited to the developer 
interface requirement). The costs are orders of magnitude lower than 
any level that would implicate the major questions doctrine. There is 
also no political controversy on the topic of developer interfaces of 
the magnitude that suggests it is a major question.
    To the extent that commenters meant to argue that requiring data 
providers to provide covered data to consumers' authorized third party 
representatives implicates the major questions doctrine, the CFPB 
disagrees. As noted above, the costs of providing covered data to third 
parties are orders of magnitude lower than any level that would 
implicate the major questions doctrine, and there is also no political 
controversy of the kind that has supported a finding that there is a 
major question. Moreover, the plain meaning of CFPA section 1033, in 
combination with the CFPA's definition of consumer in CFPA section 
1002(4), requires data providers to make covered data available to 
consumers' authorized third party representatives. Thus, any 
purportedly ``major'' consequences from that requirement flow from 
Congress' decision to enact 1033, not the CFPB's rule. This is not a 
situation where an agency discovers in a long-extant statute an 
unheralded power. Instead, this is simply the first CFPB rule to 
execute Congress' instructions on the topic, after a multiyear 
rulemaking process.
    The CFPB notes that the U.S. consumer data sharing market 
encompassed consumers' authorized third party representatives at the 
time Congress enacted the CFPA in 2010. For example, many consumer-
authorized third party representatives were providing personal 
financial management use cases well before 2010.\60\ Thus, Congress in 
fact did intend that the 2010 CFPA and the CFPB's rule implementing it 
(as expressly authorized by CFPA section 1033(a)) would broaden and 
deepen the consumer-permissioned data sharing market that existed at 
that time by requiring data providers to share financial data with 
consumers' authorized third party representatives. And nothing in the 
language of CFPA section 1033 limits it to the use cases that existed 
in 2010.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Pre-2010 providers of these use cases include Mint, 
Mvelopes, Quicken, Wesabe, and Yodlee.
    \61\ To the contrary, Congress intended for the CFPB to have 
``enough flexibility to address future problems as they arise,'' and 
that ``[e]xperience has shown that consumer protections must adapt 
to new practices and new industries.'' S. Rep. 111-176 at 11 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This view of congressional intent is fully consistent with the 
plain meaning of CFPA sections 1033 and 1002(4) described above, the 
interoperability objectives of CFPA section 1033(d), and the ongoing 
evolution of the U.S. data sharing market. That is, a rule requiring 
only that data providers make financial information available to 
individual consumers, as opposed to also requiring them to make the 
information available to third parties authorized by consumers, would 
significantly impair the uses to which consumers, through authorized 
third parties, are actually putting their financial data today. In sum, 
therefore, the CFPB can discern no textual, historical, or consumer-
protection basis for limiting part 1033 in the artificially cramped way 
that these commenters suggest.
    Similarly, ``open banking'' as the CFPB uses that term (which is 
not legally defined) already exists in the U.S. The proposed rule noted 
that the CFPB ``uses the term `open banking' to refer to the network of 
entities sharing personal financial data with consumer authorization.'' 
88 FR 74796, 74797 (Oct. 31, 2023). U.S. data providers already do 
that. Further, such sharing is what CFPA section 1033 mandates and what 
part 1033 requires. Of course, other jurisdictions might use the term 
``open banking'' differently. For example, part 1033 does not require 
data providers to permit authorized third parties to make changes 
(commonly referred to as ``write access'') to consumers' financial data 
or to transfer funds to or from consumers' financial accounts. In 
contrast, other ``open banking'' frameworks around the world, such as 
the European Union Payment Services Directive and the United Kingdom's 
Open Banking framework, address write access. While these limitations 
might be in contrast to other jurisdictions' use of the term ``open 
banking,'' such semantics do not change the fact that part 1033 adheres 
closely and appropriately to the open-banking framework Congress 
enacted in CFPA section 1033.
    The CFPB also finds that the part 1033 developer interface 
requirement is justified by the factual record and will not stifle 
innovation nor result in anti-consumer consolidation. Specifically, the 
rulemaking record provides ample evidence that a CFPB regulation 
condoning or requiring data provider provision of consumers' data to 
authorized third parties through the mechanism of screen scraping of 
data providers' consumer interfaces would present inappropriate data 
security and data accuracy risks to consumers, as well as to data 
providers, and would reduce consumers' control over the portion of 
their financial data that they share. The CFPB finds that the permitted 
self-scraping approach described above does not entail these risks 
because data providers contractually govern and are responsible for the 
``self scraping'' that data providers' service providers, such as core 
processors, will conduct under that approach.
    The CFPB considered a form of screen scraping known as 
``tokenized'' screen scraping, which is more secure than regular screen 
scraping. However, even tokenized scraping results in third parties 
accessing a larger portion of consumers' financial data than they need 
to provide the financial services that consumers are requesting. Like 
non-tokenized screen scraping, it also requires third parties to parse 
and transpose financial information from human-readable form. The CFPB 
received feedback that this activity risks inaccuracy and undermines 
the interoperability benefit of standardized data formats, which CFPA 
section 1033(d) requires the CFPB to promote. Such data would not be 
usable to consumers or authorized third parties, as required by CFPA 
section 1033(a). The CFPB therefore is not adopting that alternative.
    In light of the risks and imprecision of screen scraping, and 
within the bounds of the rulemaking discretion granted to it by CFPA 
section 1033(a), the CFPB has determined that the best way to 
effectuate the CFPA requirement that data providers make covered data

[[Page 90882]]

electronically available to consumers' authorized third party 
representatives, and also make the data available securely and 
accurately, is to require data providers to maintain a ``developer 
interface,'' i.e., to maintain functionality fit for purpose through 
which they electronically receive and respond to requests for covered 
data from authorized third parties in accordance with the requirements 
of part 1033. As noted, CFPA section 1033(a), in combination with the 
CFPA's consumer definition, makes clear that the CFPA requires data 
providers to make covered data available to consumers' authorized third 
party representatives. The CFPB therefore declines to permit a data 
provider to comply with CFPA section 1033(a) by blocking all third 
party access to covered data.
    Some commenters asserted that this approach would restrict 
technological innovation or result in consolidation of the data 
aggregation market. As noted above, the rule implements Congress' 
decision for data providers to make available consumer data to third 
parties directly. Further, the rule will foster competition and 
innovation, as many commenters believed it would. In particular, the 
standardization and machine-readability of data types and formats and 
communications protocols across data providers that is enabled by 
developer interface functionality, as opposed to screen scraping, will 
facilitate, not restrict, direct access to consumers' financial data by 
authorized third parties, including new entrants and those providing 
products and services that compete with those offered by the consumer's 
existing account provider. That is, it will reduce authorized third 
parties' reliance on data aggregators for accessing consumers' 
financial data from data providers. This is because screen scraping--
the data ingestion, parsing, and mapping it entails (let alone all its 
risks and inaccuracies)--is not easy, which is why many smaller 
authorized third parties today rely on data aggregators to do it. 
Because the standardization enabled by developer interfaces will 
facilitate direct access by authorized third parties, the number of 
authorized third parties should increase (the opposite of 
consolidation) and the variety of products and services they offer 
should also increase (the opposite of restricting innovation). Further, 
competition among data aggregators for the business of authorized third 
parties should increase too.
    It is also not true, in contrast to commenters' assertions, that 
part 1033 requires a data provider to maintain developer interface 
functionality that is exclusively accessible by authorized third 
parties and a consumer interface that is exclusively accessible by 
individual consumers. Instead, part 1033 permits (but does not require) 
data providers to grant developer interface access to individual 
consumers and to grant consumer interface access to authorized third 
parties. Further, part 1033 does not require that a data provider's 
consumer interface and its developer interface be separate and distinct 
from each other. Instead, part 1033 permits (but does not require) a 
data provider to provide its developer interface and its consumer 
interface through the same mechanism (or set of mechanisms), provided 
that the mechanism satisfies the part 1033 requirements applicable to 
developer interfaces and the requirements applicable to consumer 
interfaces.
    The CFPB discusses elsewhere in this final rule the consultation 
processes that it has engaged in with Federal and State regulators. In 
contrast to commenters' assertions, the CFPB in fact gave other 
agencies a very meaningful role in the process and, in any event, has 
complied with the consultation obligations that the law places on the 
CFPB.
Machine-Readable Files (Sec.  1033.301(b))
    The CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.301(b) to require a data provider 
to make available, upon specific request, covered data in a machine-
readable file that can be retained by a consumer or an authorized third 
party and transferred for processing into a separate information system 
that is reasonably available to and in the control of the consumer or 
authorized third party. The CFPB also proposed an example of how data 
providers could make available covered data in a machine-readable file 
that can be retained. The CFPB preliminarily determined that Sec.  
1033.301(b) would provide important benefits to consumers, such as by 
enabling them to share their data with others, including providers of 
competing financial products and services.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See, e.g., Michael S. Barr et al., Consumer Autonomy and 
Pathways to Portability in Banking and Financial Services, Univ. of 
Mich. Ctr. on Fin., L. & Policy Working Paper No. 1 (Nov. 1, 2019), 
https://financelawpolicy.umich.edu/sites/cflp/files/2021-07/umich-cflp-working-paper-consumer-autonomy-and-data-portability-pathways-Nov-3.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consumer advocate and third party commenters generally did not 
address the proposed Sec.  1033.301(b) requirement.\63\ Data provider 
commenters did not object to it, but suggested modifications and 
clarifications. They requested that the provision differentiate more 
clearly between developer and consumer interfaces, arguing that their 
file formats are, and should remain, different from each other. They 
also requested that the rule define ``machine-readable,'' particularly 
with respect to the consumer interface. They noted that the proposed 
rule preamble stated the CFPB's view that today's consumer interfaces 
generally perform in an acceptable manner and that the CFPB did not 
intend its proposal to result in material changes to consumer 
interfaces. Some commenters asserted, however, that the proposed 
provision could be interpreted to include burdensome requirements for 
the consumer interface. They stated that data providers' consumer 
interfaces today typically make covered data available in PDF files 
that consumers can print and download, but do not make all covered data 
available in a single file, nor do they make all covered data available 
in files that are machine-readable (such as CSV, XLS, or XML files) but 
instead only make transaction history available in such files. They 
asserted that if proposed Sec.  1033.301(b) were interpreted to include 
such requirements--e.g., that all of a consumer's covered data be made 
available in a single machine-readable file through the consumer 
interface--the provision would result in costly modifications to data 
providers' consumer interfaces when only few consumers actually request 
machine-readable files through consumer interfaces. One commenter 
expressed fraud concerns with respect to making machine-readable files 
available through the consumer interface but did not elaborate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ One third party stated that machine-readable formats would 
advance self-sovereign-identity principles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFPB is finalizing Sec.  1033.301(b) with certain changes. 
Except as discussed below, the provision requires that upon request for 
covered data in a machine-readable file, a data provider must make 
available to a consumer or an authorized third party covered data in a 
file that is machine-readable and that the consumer or authorized third 
party can retain and transfer for processing into a separate 
information system that is reasonably available to and in the control 
of the consumer or authorized third party. These requirements will 
provide important benefits to consumers, such as by ensuring that they 
continue to be able to share their data with others, including 
providers of competing financial products and services. However, to 
ensure these benefits without imposing inappropriate burden on data 
providers,

[[Page 90883]]

particularly with respect to their consumer interfaces, it is necessary 
and appropriate to differentiate between the consumer interface and the 
developer interface, to not apply certain requirements to the consumer 
interface, and to provide clarity regarding how the developer interface 
satisfies the requirements, as follows.
    Data providers' consumer interfaces generally provide covered data 
to consumers in an acceptable manner. The CFPB intends and expects that 
its final rule will not require material changes to data providers' 
existing consumer interfaces. Unlike the proposal, the final rule for 
consumer interfaces, as set forth in Sec.  1033.301(b)(1)(i), does not 
apply the machine-readability requirements of Sec.  1033.301(b) to 
payment initiation information (described in Sec.  1033.211(c)) or to 
account verification information (described in Sec.  1033.211(f)). 
Nonetheless, the consumer interface is required to make that 
information available in an electronic form usable by consumers, such 
as a human-readable form, pursuant to the general availability 
requirement in Sec.  1033.201(a). In contrast to how this information 
must be made available to third parties through the developer 
interface, requiring this information be made available directly to 
consumers in machine-readable files would provide limited additional 
utility to consumers relative to their ability to access this 
information in human-readable form.
    Moreover, and also unlike the proposal, pursuant to Sec.  
1033.301(b)(1)(ii), the final rule does not require consumer interfaces 
to make available the account terms and conditions (described in Sec.  
1033.211(d)) in machine-readable form. Instead, that information need 
only be made available in a retainable form. Many data providers make 
terms and conditions available to consumers, as well as the general 
public, in retainable form. The CFPB understands that data providers 
generally also make certain important terms and conditions--such as the 
rates and fees applicable to accounts and balances--available in human-
readable form in the consumer interface; additionally, many terms and 
conditions applicable to accounts are restated in periodic statement 
communications, which are also generally made available through 
consumer interfaces. The CFPB intends and expects that these changes 
from its proposed rule will mean that the requirements of Sec.  
1033.301(b) for consumer interfaces do not result in material burden 
for data providers; i.e., do not result in material changes from data 
providers' current consumer interface systems and practices.
    For consumer interfaces, the covered data that remains subject to 
Sec.  1033.301(b) is the following: transaction information (described 
in Sec.  1033.211(a)), account balances (described in Sec.  
1033.211(b)), and upcoming bill information (described in Sec.  
1033.211(e)). Data providers' consumer interfaces today generally make 
that portion of covered data available to consumers in machine-readable 
files. Accordingly, applying the requirements of Sec.  1033.301(b) to 
that portion of covered data will not require material changes to data 
providers' existing consumer interfaces.
    In final Sec.  1033.301(b), the CFPB has deleted the word 
``specific'' (i.e., has deleted it from the proposal's phrase ``upon 
specific request''). The CFPB neither intends nor effectuates any 
change of substance by this revision. It remains the case, as under the 
proposal, that the consumer must explicitly request covered data in a 
machine-readable file in order for the requirements of Sec.  
1033.301(b) to be triggered. While the rule does not specify the 
functionality (or functionalities) that a data provider must supply to 
consumers through which they may request covered data in machine-
readable form, the data provider must supply at least one readily 
discoverable mechanism through which consumers may do so. It is 
acceptable for a data provider to supply the mechanism only to 
consumers who have ``logged in.'' It is also acceptable for the data 
provider to guide consumers to the mechanism. For example, if a 
consumer calls the data provider, the provider may verbally guide the 
consumer to the mechanism. Similarly, if a consumer emails the data 
provider, the provider may reply by email with a link to or 
instructions for how to access the mechanism. Further, the data 
provider's mechanism should not require a consumer to say ``magic 
words'' in order for the data provider to deem the consumer to have 
requested data in machine-readable form. For example, if a consumer 
were to request ``a spreadsheet'' of transactions, the data provider 
should consider the consumer to have requested a machine-readable file.
    Like the proposal, final Sec.  1033.301(b) does not require a data 
provider to make all covered data available to a consumer in a single 
file--for example, the entirety of the consumer's transaction history 
with the data provider in one file. It does (like the proposal) require 
the provider to make the data available to the consumer in one or more 
files. Section 1033.211(a) provides that a data provider is deemed to 
make available sufficient historical transaction information if it 
makes available at least 24 months of such information. It is feasible 
for the provider to make available that amount of historical 
information in one file. The provider could also make the information 
available in multiple files if it chooses to do so.
    The requirement to make portions of covered data available in 
machine-readable files through the consumer interface, as described 
above, will not result in inappropriate fraud risk. As noted, the 
requirement is consistent with data providers' existing practices for 
making data available through their consumer interfaces. Further, the 
requirements in part 1033 to make covered data available (whether in 
machine-readable files or otherwise) do not include any requirement to 
permit consumers or authorized third parties to initiate payments 
through the consumer interface. Instead, it remains up to a data 
provider's discretion--as opposed to a requirement of part 1033 or any 
other CFPB rule--whether to grant consumers permission to initiate 
payments through the data provider's consumer interface.
    With respect to the requirement in proposed Sec.  1033.301(b) that 
a data provider make covered data available through its developer 
interface in machine-readable form, the CFPB has determined that the 
requirement in Sec.  1033.311(b) (discussed below) that the developer 
interface make the covered data available in a standardized and 
machine-readable format is sufficient. Section 1033.301(a) requires a 
data provider to maintain a developer interface, which Sec.  1033.131 
defines as an interface through which a data provider receives requests 
for covered data and makes available covered data in an electronic form 
usable by authorized third parties in response to the requests. 
Further, Sec.  1033.311(b)(2) requires the developer interface to make 
available covered data in a standardized and machine-readable format. A 
data provider that maintains a developer interface, as required by 
Sec.  1033.301(a) and defined by Sec.  1033.131, that complies with 
Sec.  1033.311(b) thereby makes available to authorized third parties 
covered data in a machine-readable form that the authorized third 
parties can retain and process in separate information systems 
reasonably available to them. Accordingly, Sec.  1033.301(b)(2) states 
that a data provider's developer interface satisfies the requirements 
of Sec.  1033.301(b) if the interface makes available covered data

[[Page 90884]]

in a form that satisfies the requirements of Sec.  1033.311(b).
Fees Prohibited (Sec.  1033.301(c))
    The CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.301(c) to prohibit a data provider 
from imposing any fees or charges on a consumer or authorized third 
party for establishing or maintaining the interfaces required by Sec.  
1033.301(a) or for receiving requests or making available covered data 
in response to requests as required by part 1033. The CFPB 
preliminarily determined that the proposed prohibition was necessary 
and appropriate to ensure that fees do not impede consumers and 
authorized third parties from exercising consumers' statutory rights. 
The CFPB requested comment on whether any clear parameters exist such 
that, subject to such parameters, data providers could charge 
reasonable, standardized fees that neither obstruct the access right 
due to cost nor impede third parties' access to data provider 
interfaces due to negotiations over fee amounts or schedules.
    Few commenters addressed the prohibition of fees for providing 
covered data to individual consumers through the consumer interface. 
Those commenters who addressed this issue did not object and stated 
that data providers do not charge fees today for providing covered data 
through their consumer interfaces.
    Many commenters addressed fees for providing covered data to 
authorized third parties through the developer interface. Third party 
and consumer advocate commenters generally supported the proposed fee 
prohibition on the grounds that covered data belongs to consumers and 
that the statute gives consumers the right to access and share the data 
with the authorized third parties that they choose. These commenters 
also suggested modifications to the prohibition to ensure that data 
providers do not evade it by, for example, charging higher fees for 
other financial products and services to consumers and authorized third 
parties for exercising their section 1033 data access rights. Third 
party commenters suggested that the CFPB make clear that the fee 
prohibition applies to data providers' service providers, in addition 
to applying to data providers themselves.
    SBA Advocacy compared data providers' provision of covered data to 
Federal agencies' provision of information in response to Freedom of 
Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, requests and stated that it seems 
inconsistent that agencies are permitted to charge for providing 
information whereas data providers are prohibited from doing so.
    Data provider commenters opposed the developer interface fee 
prohibition. They asserted that the CFPB lacks authority to prohibit 
fees under CFPA section 1033. They also stated (as noted above) that 
they would incur costs to implement the developer interface and that, 
in light of those costs, the fee prohibition is an impermissible taking 
because it commandeers data providers' infrastructure and resources for 
the benefit of third parties, which may access covered data without 
paying a fee and then charge fees to other third parties for the data. 
These commenters also stated that the prohibition is inconsistent with 
the CFPB's 1034(c) advisory opinion, which permits large institutions 
to charge fees for providing data in some limited circumstances, such 
as where a consumer had already repeatedly requested and received the 
same information regarding their account. It is also inconsistent, they 
stated, with OCC regulations (12 CFR 7.4002), which according to the 
commenters give national banks discretion to set prices for the banking 
services they provide. No commenters provided any information regarding 
possible parameters for standardized fees.
    For the reasons discussed herein, consistent with the proposal, 
final Sec.  1033.301(c) prohibits a data provider from imposing any 
fees or charges on a consumer or authorized third party for 
establishing or maintaining the interfaces required by part 1033 or for 
receiving requests or making covered data in response to requests as 
required by part 1033. This prohibition ensures that data providers do 
not inhibit consumers' ability to access their data, authorize third 
parties to access their data, or choose which third parties to 
authorize to access their data.
    The CFPB is issuing Sec.  1033.301(c) pursuant to its authorities 
under sections 1033(a) and 1022(b)(1) of the CFPA. Section 1033(a) 
states that data providers ``shall'' make covered data available to 
consumers ``upon request,'' ``[s]ubject to rules prescribed by the 
Bureau,'' subject to certain statutory exemptions in section 1033(b), 
and without any other condition. Congress did not authorize fees. In 
fact, it specified in section 1033(b)(4) that a data provider need not 
make available information it ``cannot retrieve in the ordinary course 
of its business,'' which weighs against an argument that Congress 
intended data providers to be able to decide to condition data access 
on payment of a fee. Congress dealt with the policy issue of potential 
burden on data providers by cabining the information they are required 
to retrieve, rather than through compensation. Even assuming Congress 
did not foreclose fees when consumers exercise their statutory rights 
under section 1033, in exercising the CFFB's rulemaking authority to 
regulate the specifics of data sharing under section 1033, the CFPB is 
not permitting fees. In particular, the CFPB is concerned that allowing 
them would obstruct the data access right that Congress contemplated. 
As discussed later, the CFPB has not identified, and no commenter has 
put forward, a suitable alternative that protects the data access 
right.
    The fee prohibition is also independently authorized by section 
1022(b)(1) of the CFPA in order to prevent evasion of Federal consumer 
financial law. CFPA section 1033 and this final rule are both Federal 
consumer financial laws. If data providers could decide what fee to 
charge, they could limit or eliminate the right that CFPA section 1033 
confers. Congress would not have enacted CFPA section 1033 if it 
trusted data providers to be fully forthcoming with covered data. And, 
in the CFPB's assessment, those data providers that perceive CFPA 
section 1033 to be a threat to their competitive positions have strong 
incentives to withhold information. The CFPB has not identified a 
suitable alternative that would prevent such evasion of the data access 
right.
    The CFPB notes that the fee prohibition is far from a novel use of 
rulemaking authority. Other longstanding consumer financial regulations 
prohibit fees when consumers seek to exercise statutory rights under 
Federal consumer financial laws that are otherwise silent on whether an 
entity may charge fees. For example, Regulation E (12 CFR part 1005) 
and Regulation Z (12 CFR part 1026) both prohibit fees for error 
resolution when an error has occurred and require avoidance of ``any 
chilling effect on the good-faith assertion of errors that might result 
if charges are assessed when no billing error has occurred.'' \64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ Regulation E comment 11(c)-3; Regulation Z comment 13-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFPB also notes that the fee prohibition is not inconsistent 
with FOIA. There, the applicable statute expressly permits fees, 
whereas here it does not. Further, the information agencies provide 
through FOIA typically does not pertain directly to the requestors of 
the information, whereas under CFPA section 1033 the information 
provided by data providers

[[Page 90885]]

pertains directly to the requestor--the consumer--because it is 
information about the financial product or service the consumer 
obtained from the data provider. Finally, FOIA addresses information 
that may not be readily available for agencies to find and disclose, 
whereas CFPA section 1033 addresses information that data providers can 
retrieve in the ordinary course of business.
    The fee prohibition does not make this rule a taking. The addition 
of the fee prohibition does not make the rule a permanent physical 
invasion of property, nor does it limit data providers' control or 
discretion to the point that they are deprived of all economically 
beneficial use of property. Further, data providers do not generally 
charge consumers or third parties for data access today, indicating 
that the economic impact of the prohibition, along with any potential 
interference with investment-backed expectations, is not so large as to 
be considered a taking. Any hypothetical investment-backed expectations 
are further attenuated by the fact that Congress enacted section 1033 
over fourteen years ago, and the CFPB has been engaged in a lengthy 
rulemaking process which will be followed by staggered compliance dates 
over a period of years. Data providers have long been on notice that a 
CFPB rulemaking will impact data sharing. The character of this rule is 
also far removed from a taking. The rule adjusts the benefits and 
burdens of economic life, specifically by providing consumers with 
greater access to data about their financial accounts, in some cases 
with the assistance of companies acting as their representatives.
    The fee prohibition is not inconsistent with CFPA section 1034(c) 
which, as noted in the CFPB's advisory opinion, permits fees in certain 
limited circumstances, such as when a large bank or credit union 
charges a fee to a consumer who repeatedly requested and received the 
same information regarding their account. See 88 FR 71279, 71282 (Oct. 
16, 2023). Section 1034(c) imposes an obligation to ``comply'' with a 
consumer request for information, and the CFPB explained that, in the 
context of repeated requests, the large bank or credit union would have 
already met its obligation under section 1034(c) by ``comply[ing]'' 
with the consumer's earlier requests. Id. By contrast, section 1033 
imposes an obligation to ``make available'' information upon the 
consumer's request. 12 U.S.C. 5533(a). By referring to information 
being made ``available,'' section 1033 contemplates an ongoing 
obligation to grant consumers access to information, rather than an 
obligation that could be satisfied by providing information a single 
time.
    Moreover, the CFPB did not promulgate the CFPA section 1034(c) 
opinion through the notice-and-comment rulemaking process. As such, the 
opinion was and is limited to setting forth the CFPB's interpretation 
of existing law. In contrast, the CFPB is establishing part 1033 in 
accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act's notice-and-comment 
rulemaking procedures. The CFPB's promulgation of part 1033 may 
therefore establish new requirements, including by limiting fees more 
strictly than does section 1034(c), if the CFPB determines that is 
warranted using the discretionary rulemaking authority that Congress 
has delegated.
    The fee prohibition is also not inconsistent with the OCC 
regulation cited by commenters. The OCC regulation, 12 CFR 7.4002, 
generally provides that national banks have authority to charge their 
customers non-interest charges and fees but does not override other 
Federal laws or regulations that expressly bar specific charges and 
fees. For example, as noted above, when an error has occurred the 
CFPB's Regulation E and Regulation Z prohibit fees for resolving the 
error and the OCC's regulation does not override those prohibitions.
    Data provider commenters additionally argued that part 1033 should 
permit them to charge fees because data providers' systems are key to 
making covered data available and establishing and maintaining those 
systems requires resources. They argued that a rule prohibiting them 
from offsetting those costs by charging fees to third parties could 
necessitate recoupment of the costs through fees to their consumer 
account holders for other banking services. They also argued that the 
fee prohibition would discourage data providers from implementing and 
investing in data sharing systems that exceed the minimum legal 
requirements. In contrast, they argued, permitting reasonable fees 
would incentivize both data provider investment and third party data 
minimization. That is, they argued, third parties accessing more data 
through developer interfaces would impose more burden on those 
interfaces and therefore should incur greater fees than those accessing 
less data. Data provider commenters also asserted that in other 
jurisdictions, such as the E.U., fee prohibitions have led to 
underinvestment and suboptimal open finance ecosystems. They further 
argued that in light of these considerations, E.U. rules proposed in 
November 2023 would permit data providers to request reasonable 
compensation when providing data to other businesses.
    As part of the rulemaking process, the CFPB has taken steps to 
reduce data providers' data access costs, as reflected in the final 
rule. First, the CFPB proposed and is finalizing that data providers 
must make available a narrower set of covered data than the CFPB was 
considering at the SBREFA stage. Second, in contrast to the proposed 
rule, the final rule does not apply to depository institutions that are 
small businesses as defined in SBA's regulations (irrespective of 
whether those institutions have a consumer interface). These 
institutions therefore will not incur any data access costs under the 
final rule. Third, many depository institutions that are not small 
businesses, and are therefore subject to part 1033, already have 
developer interfaces and therefore should be able to bring those 
interfaces into compliance with part 1033 at reasonable cost. Fourth, 
the final rule adopts a substantially more extended implementation 
timeframe than the CFPB proposed. Fifth, the CFPB continues to develop 
guidance materials and to work with industry standard setters to foster 
appropriate standards. These steps will give data providers more 
certainty regarding how to come into compliance with the rule in the 
extended implementation timeframe, thereby reducing their costs. And 
sixth, Sec.  1033.311(e) (discussed in part IV.C.3 below) makes clear 
that a data provider's developer interface may function by permitting 
the data provider's service provider (such as a core processor) to 
screen scrape the data provider's consumer interface and to make the 
data available through a developer interface that the service provider 
establishes and maintains on the data provider's behalf. This approach 
offers data providers a low-cost path to providing a developer 
interface and is widely used in the market today.
    The CFPB does not expect that the fee prohibition will discourage 
data providers from implementing and investing in their data sharing 
systems. The CFPB is not aware that regulatory requirements or 
prohibitions in other areas, such as Regulation E and Regulation Z 
error resolution, inappropriately discourage investment in systems in 
those areas. To the contrary, regulatory requirements and prohibitions 
encourage robust systems and make it less likely that an industry 
participant with such systems will be driven from the market by 
participants without them. Additionally, data

[[Page 90886]]

providers generally invest significantly in continually improving their 
consumer interfaces, which data providers generally do not charge any 
kind of fees to access. The CFPB is also aware, including from the 
Provider Collection, that some data providers and service providers 
(such as core providers) made significant investments to develop, 
implement, and maintain developer interfaces even prior to this 
rulemaking, and, as noted above, data providers do not generally charge 
fees to third parties for accessing developer interfaces.
    Data provider fees are not the appropriate means by which third 
parties' data minimization is incentivized and accomplished. Instead, 
third parties themselves must and should comply with part 1033's data 
minimization requirements. Section 1033.311(d) (discussed below) 
permits data providers to impose reasonable access caps, further 
undermining the appropriateness of permitting data providers to charge 
fees to third parties in order to achieve data minimization or, more 
broadly, to incentivize third parties to comply with part 1033.
    By its terms, the Sec.  1033.301(c) fee prohibition applies to data 
providers and will be supervised and enforced against data providers 
(just like all of the other provisions in subparts B and C). But the 
fee prohibition encompasses a data provider's vendor, in addition to 
the data provider itself. For example, assume a data provider asserts 
that it is complying with part 1033 because it makes covered data 
available to authorized third parties through a developer interface 
that the data provider's vendor maintains on behalf of the data 
provider. The data provider would not comply with the fee prohibition 
in Sec.  1033.301(c) if its vendor charged (or sought to charge) fees 
to authorized third parties in connection with making covered data 
available to them through the developer interface that the vendor 
maintains on behalf of the data provider.
    Data sharing in the U.S. is distinguishable in relevant respects 
from the E.U. American consumers already expect third party data access 
capabilities, and the U.S. market consists of a higher number of 
depository institutions (and card issuers) than most other 
jurisdictions. Further, the E.U. proposal to permit fees is only a 
proposal and, if adopted, would permit only limited, standardized fees. 
As a result, the CFPB believes it is premature to conclude that any 
difficulties that might have resulted from prohibiting fees for data 
access in the E.U. will be replicated here. As noted, the CFPB 
requested comment on parameters for reasonable, standardized fees that 
neither obstruct the access right nor impede access to interfaces. No 
commenters provided information in response to that request, and the 
CFPB does not currently have information to suggest it would be 
appropriate or feasible to use a standardized fee schedule to account 
for the wide variety of circumstances in the open banking system. The 
CFPB will continue to actively monitor and engage with open banking 
stakeholders. As the CFPB proceeds to implement this first rule under 
CFPA section 1033, and to ensure consumers' data rights are respected 
across consumer financial markets, it invites continuing input if 
entities believe that a regime of standardized fees along the lines of 
those described above is appropriate and feasible.
    Data provider commenters also opposed the fee prohibition on the 
grounds that it would unfairly disadvantage them relative to data 
aggregators, which are not prohibited from charging fees to other third 
parties in connection with providing data they obtained through 
providers' developer interfaces. A few data providers, in addition to 
opposing it, asserted that if kept the prohibition must be accompanied 
by restrictions on third parties' secondary uses of covered data to 
ensure that the benefits of data sharing accrue to consumers, as 
opposed to data aggregators. These commenters argued that if the CFPB 
were to loosen such restrictions in the final rule then this ``consumer 
benefit'' principle would no longer apply and data provider fees to 
third parties should be permitted.
    The fee prohibition does not unfairly advantage data aggregators 
relative to data providers. CFPA section 1033 describes a consumer 
right to access data from data providers--and gives no indication that 
providers may properly impinge on that right by charging for its 
exercise. In contrast, CFPA section 1033 does not include a right for 
consumers to require data aggregators to provide covered data. Instead, 
the data aggregators' participation in the data-sharing process is 
voluntary. Fundamentally, an authorized third party's choice to use a 
service provider, such as a data aggregator, and a consumer's exercise 
of a statutory right, are entirely different things--there is no 
equivalence and accordingly no unfairness. Moreover, a data provider 
controls consumers' covered data concerning the financial product or 
service that the consumer obtained from the data provider, such that 
competitive pressures do not readily limit the data access fees that 
data providers might seek to charge. In contrast, data aggregators are 
service providers chosen by authorized third parties, who can select a 
different aggregator for price reasons--or connect to the data provider 
directly. As a result, competition should naturally put downward 
pressure on fees that aggregators charge third party clients.
    For reasons discussed under subpart D below, the final rule does 
not materially increase third parties' permissible secondary uses of 
covered data relative to the proposal. Accordingly, it is not necessary 
or appropriate to permit data providers to charge fees in light of 
possible secondary uses that the CFPB did not propose to permit and is 
not permitting in this final rule. In any event, the breadth (or 
narrowness) of data aggregators' and other third parties' potential 
uses of covered data does not logically control the issue of whether 
data providers should be prohibited from charging fees. Competitive 
pressure between third parties will naturally put downward pressure on 
fees they are able to charge. In light of this competitive pressure, 
permitting data providers to charge fees would not cause the benefits 
of data sharing to ``shift'' from third parties to consumers; instead, 
it would cause the benefits to shift from consumers to the data 
providers that hold and control consumers' financial data.
    Allowing cost-based fees, regardless of whether or not they are 
charged on a per-request basis, would not better effectuate the 
consumer data access right described in section 1033. The CFPB received 
feedback during the SBREFA process that allowing data providers to 
charge fees, including fees to integrate with a developer interface, 
could pose a barrier to consumers' use of their data through smaller 
authorized third parties. See SBREFA Panel Report at 28. Data providers 
have the ability and incentive to restrict third party data access 
through fees and allowing data providers to charge different fees to 
different third parties also is likely to result in harm to consumers 
and third parties. See 88 FR 74796, 74814 (Oct. 31, 2023). In light of 
this, allowing data providers to charge what they see as commercially 
reasonable fees is likely to obstruct consumers' ability to use their 
data, particularly through smaller authorized third parties. In 
addition, as noted above, no stakeholder offered any concrete 
indication of a workable and administrable standard for ``reasonable

[[Page 90887]]

fees'' despite the CFPB's solicitation of comment on point.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ It is not just the fact or level of fees that impedes 
consumers' exercise of statutory rights, but their potential 
variance as well. For example, variation in fees across data 
providers and variation in fees at one data provider across third 
parties would likely introduce material negotiating costs to third 
parties, thereby further impeding consumers' ability to use their 
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Requirements Applicable to Developer Interfaces (Sec.  1033.311)
General (Sec.  1033.311(a))
    Proposed Sec.  1033.311(a) stated that a developer interface 
required by Sec.  1033.301(a) must satisfy the requirements set forth 
in Sec.  1033.311. The CFPB received no comments objecting to this 
provision and the CFPB adopts it as proposed.
Standardized Format (Sec.  1033.311(b))
Proposal
    The CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.311(b) to require a developer 
interface to make available covered data in a standardized format. The 
CFPB proposed that the interface would be deemed to satisfy this 
requirement if it makes covered data available in a format set forth in 
a qualified industry standard, or, in the absence of such a standard, 
if it makes available covered data in a format that is widely used by 
the developer interfaces of other similarly situated data providers 
with respect to similar data and is readily usable by authorized third 
parties. The CFPB preliminarily determined that this proposed 
requirement and accompanying safe harbors were necessary and 
appropriate to implement the mandate in CFPA section 1033(d) that the 
CFPB prescribe standards to promote the use and development of 
standardized formats. More specifically, the CFPB preliminarily 
determined that, consistent with CFPA section 1033(a) and (d), the 
proposal to require covered data to be made available in a usable and 
standardized format would reduce variation across the market and 
promote greater consistency of data formats. In particular, the 
proposed provision sought to ensure that the information systems of 
new-entrant and small-third parties can process covered data from the 
full range of data providers across the market by reducing varied 
formats that impel reliance on intermediaries to provide data in a 
usable format.
    The CFPB did not propose a definition of ``format,'' requesting 
comment on whether one is needed and whether the term should be defined 
to mean the specifications for data fields, status codes, communication 
protocols, or other elements to ensure third party systems can 
communicate with the developer interface. The CFPB also requested 
comment on the above safe harbors that it proposed.
Comments
    All commenters, including data providers, third parties, and 
consumer advocates, that addressed the proposed requirement that the 
developer interface make available covered data in a standardized 
format supported it. Further, all commenters that addressed the CFPB's 
request for comment stated that the rule should include a definition of 
format and that the definition should include, in addition to data 
field specifications, a data model and communication protocol for 
requests and responses for covered data to be exchanged.\66\ Commenters 
stated that this broader approach to the standardized format 
requirement would help effectuate interoperability to support data 
sharing. Several data provider commenters stated that the rule should 
also apply its standardized format requirement to data aggregators. 
They argued that doing so would encourage competition and benefit 
consumers by facilitating the ability of an authorized third party to 
switch data aggregators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ One commenter stated that the rule's standardized format 
requirement should include security standards applicable to 
authenticating and reviewing authorization of third parties. This 
comment is discussed in the preamble to Sec.  1033.331(b), which 
addresses how those procedures factor into the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters' views were mixed on the CFPB's proposed approach to 
safe harbors for standardized formats. Commenters generally supported 
the proposed safe harbor for use of a standardized format set forth in 
a qualified industry standard, but were uncertain that one would exist 
by the time of the applicable compliance date for part 1033. Because of 
that uncertainty, commenters generally did not object to the proposed 
safe harbor for a widely used format, although views were mixed on that 
point. Specifically, some commenters expressed concern that a safe 
harbor for a widely used format could lead to more than one widely used 
format, which might not be an improvement over format differences in 
place today. Further, many commenters expressed concern with the CFPB's 
proposal that a widely used format would receive a safe harbor only in 
the absence of a qualified industry standard. These commenters 
expressed concern that this approach could make data providers 
reluctant to implement their developer interfaces now with a widely 
used format because, were they to do so and were a qualified industry 
standard later to adopt a different format, the providers with the 
widely used format would lose their safe harbor status and could feel 
compelled to redo their interfaces using the qualified industry 
standard formats. These commenters stated that the CFPB could reduce 
issues of multiple formats and incentivize faster deployment of 
developer interfaces--thereby increasing data quality and consumer 
safety relative to screen scraping--by working with industry 
participants to establish a consensus standard for data formats as soon 
as possible.
Final Rule
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is adopting final Sec.  
1033.311(b) to require a data provider's developer interface to make 
available covered data in a standardized and machine-readable format. 
The final rule also provides that indicia that the format satisfies 
this requirement include that it conforms to a consensus standard. The 
final rule defines both ``format'' and ``standardized.'' Format is 
defined in Sec.  1033.311(b)(1) to include structures and definitions 
of covered data and requirements and protocols for communicating 
requests and responses for covered data. Standardized is defined in 
Sec.  1033.311(b)(2) to mean that it conforms to a format widely used 
by other data providers and designed to be readily usable by authorized 
third parties.
    The CFPB is not providing examples of ``machine-readable'' file 
types because technology regarding automated, digital ingestion of data 
may evolve such that any such examples could become outdated. Section 
1033.211, discussed above, defines covered data for purposes of part 
1033. Section 1033.301(b), also discussed above, provides that a data 
provider's developer interface complies with part 1033's machine-
readability requirement if it makes covered data available in a form 
that satisfies the requirements of Sec.  1033.311(b). Further, as 
noted, Sec.  1033.311(b) requires the developer interface to make 
covered data available in a format that is standardized and machine-
readable and provides that indicia that the format satisfies this 
requirement include that the format conforms to a consensus standard.
    The format definition that the CFPB is adopting gives a data 
provider some flexibility as to the structures and definitions of 
covered data made available via its developer interface so it can adapt 
over time to new and evolving use cases. Nonetheless, in all cases, the

[[Page 90888]]

format must be standardized, i.e., it must be widely used by other data 
providers and designed to be readily usable by authorized third 
parties. The CFPB believes that this level of flexibility is necessary 
and appropriate, both because, as noted, technology is rapidly 
evolving, and because there will inevitably be new use cases for which 
authorized third parties request covered data. As new uses cases 
develop, the best and most readily usable format for a given set of 
covered data could change.
    For example, under Sec.  1033.211(d) covered data includes account 
terms and conditions (as defined in that section), and terms and 
conditions include many components, some of which may be numerical and 
some of which may be natural language. As authorized third parties' use 
cases for covered data change over time, the best standardized and 
machine-readable format, or formats, for data providers' developer 
interfaces to use in making available the many components of terms and 
conditions will also likely change. More specifically, as authorized 
third parties' use cases change, the components of terms and conditions 
that are made available as machine-readable, discrete ``callable'' data 
fields will likely increase, and those components made available as 
machine-readable, lengthier ``text'' data fields will likely 
decrease.\67\ Over the course of these ongoing changes in authorized 
third parties' use cases and pursuant to the ``readily usable by 
authorized third parties'' prong of the definition of ``standardized'' 
in Sec.  1033.311(b), the CFPB expects that data providers will in good 
faith take reasonable steps to make the appropriate components of terms 
and conditions available through their developer interfaces as discrete 
callable data fields.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ If it is necessary for a data provider to make available a 
PDF file for the purpose of complying with Sec.  1033.311(b), the 
PDF file should be machine-readable. While this may be possible for 
some PDF files, other PDF files, such as those that include covered 
data as images, would generally not be considered machine-readable. 
Section 1033.221(d), which restates the statutory exception for any 
information that the data provider cannot retrieve in the ordinary 
course of its business with respect to that information, might apply 
in limited circumstances when historical terms and conditions are 
stored as image files, as discussed in part IV.B.4 above. However, 
the CFPB does not expect current terms and conditions to be subject 
to any such exception given applicable legal requirements, as 
discussed with respect to Sec.  1033.221(d) above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Defining format to include structures and definitions of covered 
data and requirements and protocols for communicating requests and 
responses for covered data will facilitate interoperability across data 
providers and third parties, including new-entrant third parties that 
wish to access covered data directly from data providers' developer 
interfaces, as opposed to through data aggregators. Interoperability is 
also facilitated by the two-pronged definition of standardized, under 
which format, to be standardized, must be both widely used by other 
data providers and designed to be readily usable by authorized third 
parties. The final rule includes a non-exhaustive list of components of 
format because whether a standard includes any particular component of 
format will depend to some degree on the standard selected.
    The final rule's definition of format is necessary and appropriate 
to implement CFPA section 1033(a) and (d). Standardized structures and 
definitions of covered data and requirements and protocols for 
communicating requests and responses will help ensure covered data are 
readily made available in a usable electronic form to a wide array of 
authorized third parties. This facilitation of interoperability also 
implements the mandate of CFPA section 1033(d) that the CFPB by rule 
promote standardized formats for information, including through the use 
of machine-readable files. Without standard protocols for communicating 
requests and responses, data providers would forfeit the economies of 
scale they can achieve by making covered data available in common ways 
through their service providers, such as core processors, and 
authorized third parties would incur costs to build custom integrations 
to access covered data from various data providers. These costs would 
undermine the benefits of requiring data providers to make available 
covered data in the first place. Accordingly, the Sec.  1033.311(b) 
requirement to use standard protocols for communicating requests and 
responses for covered data is necessary and appropriate to promote the 
development and use of standardized formats for covered data.
    The CFPB proposed that a developer interface would be deemed to 
satisfy the standardized format requirement if it made covered data 
available in a format widely used by other data providers and readily 
usable by authorized third parties. The CFPB believes that those 
attributes of a format--that it is widely used by other data providers 
and designed to be readily usable by authorized third parties--go 
directly to what it means for a format to be ``standardized'' and best 
effectuate the statute's objectives of promoting interoperability of 
systems to process covered data and ensuring data providers make 
available covered data in a usable electronic form upon request. 
Accordingly, the final rule adopts those attributes as components of 
the definition of standardized in Sec.  1033.311(b)(2). The CFPB 
emphasizes that, under the definition of standardized in Sec.  
1033.311(b)(2), wide use by other data providers of a format is 
necessary but not sufficient for the format to qualify as standardized. 
For the format to qualify as standardized, the format must also be one 
that is designed to be readily usable by authorized third parties. This 
two-pronged approach--widely used by data providers and readily usable 
by authorized third parties--is necessary and appropriate to ensure 
that third parties, including in particular new-entrant and small third 
parties, can process covered data from a wide range of data providers 
across the market.
    Final Sec.  1033.311(b) makes several changes from the text of 
proposed Sec.  1033.311(b)(2) to address concerns from commenters that 
the proposed regulatory text could have resulted in fragmentation of 
data formats, and for additional clarity. The proposed provision would 
have deemed a format standardized in the absence of a qualified 
industry standard if the format is widely used by the ``developer 
interfaces of similarly situated data providers with respect to similar 
data'' and is readily usable by authorized third parties. The final 
rule replaces the phrase ``similarly situated data providers,'' with 
``other data providers.'' This is intended to further promote the 
development and use of standardized data, whereas the proposed approach 
could have resulted in fragmentation of format standards. The final 
rule also omits the phrase ``with respect to similar data'' as 
superfluous because both the proposed and final regulatory text apply 
the standardized format requirement to ``covered data.'' In addition, 
the phrase ``with respect to similar data'' contained in the proposed 
text might have inadvertently resulted in fragmentation of data 
formats. The final rule also omits the phrase ``developer interface'' 
as superfluous, with no change in meaning intended.
    The CFPB proposed that a data provider would be deemed to satisfy 
the standardized format requirement if it makes covered data available 
in a format set forth in a qualified industry standard. In contrast, 
under the final rule, indicia that the standardized format requirement 
is satisfied include that it makes covered data available in a format 
set forth in a consensus standard. The CFPB is making this change--from 
safe harbor of compliance

[[Page 90889]]

to indicia of compliance--because, as described above, the CFPB is 
defining format (which the proposal did not) to include communications 
protocols and requirements, as opposed to only data structures and 
definitions. As noted, all commenters who addressed this issue--
including data providers, third parties, and consumer advocates--
supported defining format and defining it in this broader way. 
Nonetheless, in light of this broader definition, the CFPB believes 
that it is possible or even likely that a given consensus standard will 
address only certain aspects of format as defined. As a result, a data 
provider may reasonably seek to incorporate more than one consensus 
standard into its developer interface's systems and processes. For 
example, at a high level, the data provider might incorporate one 
standard for data structures and another for communication protocols. 
In addition, a given standard might have components within it that are 
not geared toward interoperability and therefore do not warrant safe 
harbor status. Accordingly, the CFPB has determined that it is more 
appropriate for conformance to a consensus standard to serve as indicia 
that the data provider's developer interface meets the standardized 
format requirement, rather than to serve as a safe harbor.
    The change from the proposal's safe harbor approach to the final 
rule's indicia approach to consensus standards within Sec.  1033.311(b) 
does not change the CFPB's determination that the objective of both 
CFPA section 1033(d) and the standardized format requirement in Sec.  
1033.311(b) is interoperability, i.e., is to ensure that (1) a data 
provider's developer interface can expect and use a standardized data 
structure and communication protocol for receiving requests from and 
making covered data available to all third parties that request covered 
data through the interface \68\ and (2) a third party can use and 
expect a standardized data structure and communication protocol for 
submitting requests to and receiving covered data from all data 
providers' developer interfaces. The CFPB does not anticipate taking 
action against data providers' and third parties' approach to achieving 
interoperability, so long as entities comply with the standardized 
format requirement of Sec.  1033.311(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ Consistent with Sec.  1033.311(b), data providers may 
reasonably require authorized third parties to use standardized and 
machine-readable formats when submitting requests for covered data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Incorporating ``widely used'' into the meaning of ``standardized'' 
and shifting to an approach in which a consensus standard serves as 
indicia of compliance (rather than a safe harbor) also addresses 
commenters' concerns that data providers might have responded to the 
rule as proposed by ``waiting'' to build their developer interfaces 
until a consensus standard format was adopted. Of course, the 
lengthening of compliance periods in the final rule provides more 
assurance that consensus standards will be available before compliance 
begins. But in any event a data provider will have certainty that its 
developer interface format complies with the requirement to be 
standardized, so long as the format is widely used by other data 
providers and designed to be readily usable by authorized third 
parties. In the event that an applicable consensus standard becomes 
available after the relevant compliance date, data providers can be 
assured of their continued compliance. They will not need to effectuate 
some instantaneous ``redo'' of the developer interface to match the 
consensus standard format, but, as appropriate, can simply take steps 
to transition to the consensus standard format in an orderly fashion.
Commercially Reasonable Performance (Sec.  1033.311(c))
    The CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.311(c)(1) to require that 
performance of the interface must be commercially reasonable. All 
commenters who addressed the proposed requirement supported it. The 
CFPB has determined that the commercially reasonable performance 
requirement for the developer interface carries out CFPA section 
1033(a) by establishing how a data provider satisfies the requirement 
in CFPA section 1033(a) that the data provider make covered data 
available in an electronic form usable by authorized third parties. The 
CFPB adopts the requirement, renumbered as Sec.  1033.311(c), with 
technical non-substantive edits.
Response Rate; Quantitative Minimum Performance Specification (Sec.  
1033.311(c)(1))
Proposal
    The CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.311(c)(1)(i) a quantitative minimum 
performance specification for a data provider's developer interface 
beneath which the performance of the interface could not be 
commercially reasonable. Specifically, the proposed quantitative 
minimum performance specification was a response rate of at least 99.5 
percent. The CFPB proposed to calculate the response rate as the number 
of proper responses by the interface divided by the total number of 
queries for covered data to the interface. For clarity and consistency 
with other provisions in part 1033, final Sec.  1033.311(c)(1) uses 
``request'' in lieu of ``query.'' The CFPB neither intends nor 
effectuates any change to the substance of the provision as a result.
    The CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.311(c)(1)(i)(D) to define a proper 
response as a response, other than any message such as an error message 
provided during unscheduled downtime of the interface, that meets the 
following three criteria: (1) the response either fulfills the query or 
explains why the query was not fulfilled; (2) the response is 
consistent with the reasonable written policies and procedures the data 
provider establishes and maintains pursuant to Sec.  1033.351(a); and 
(3) the response is provided by the interface within a commercially 
reasonable amount of time. The CFPB proposed that the amount of time 
cannot be commercially reasonable if it is more than 3,500 
milliseconds.
    The CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.311(c)(1)(i)(A) that responses by 
and queries to the interface during scheduled downtime for the 
interface must be excluded from the calculation of the proper response 
rate. The CFPB also proposed in Sec.  1033.311(c)(1)(i)(C) that the 
total amount of scheduled downtime for the interface in the relevant 
time period, such as a month, must be reasonable and in Sec.  
1033.311(c)(1)(i)(B) that in order for any downtime of the interface to 
qualify as scheduled downtime, the data provider must have provided 
reasonable notice of the downtime to all third parties to which the 
data provider has granted access to the interface. Finally, the CFPB 
proposed for both Sec.  1033.311(c)(1)(i)(B) and (C), that adherence to 
a consensus standard would be an indication that the amount and notice 
of downtime were reasonable.
Comments
    Both third party and data provider commenters expressed certain 
concerns about the CFPB's proposed quantitative minimum requirements. 
Third party commenters generally supported the adoption of minimum 
quantitative performance requirements, but they saw the proposed rule 
as not including a broad enough set of such requirements. Those 
requirements it did include they described as too lax because they were 
below the performance levels actually being achieved in the market 
under third parties' extant data access agreements with data providers. 
They

[[Page 90890]]

argued that the rule as proposed could unintentionally cause a race to 
the bottom in performance levels. More specifically, they argued that 
the proposed 3,500 millisecond response time was too slow and too 
vague. They suggested a better requirement would take the form ``less 
than x milliseconds at least x percent of the time'' and should be 
stricter for certain data request types, such as for authorization or 
account balance. Third parties also wanted quantified maximum scheduled 
downtimes and minimum advance notice of such downtimes.
    Data provider commenters opposed the CFPB's adoption of minimum 
quantitative performance requirements. While not addressing current 
actual interface performance under their extant data access agreements, 
they asserted that the proposed 99.5 percent response rate would be too 
onerous and would impose costs without commensurate consumer benefit, 
particularly with respect to smaller providers that have fewer consumer 
account holders and that today do not have any developer interfaces. 
They also asserted that the proposed provisions underlying the response 
rate--such as downtimes, notices thereof, and 3,500 millisecond 
response times--were unclear and that the CFPB did not provide a 
sufficient factual justification for them. They argued, for example, 
that the CFPB needed to provide more specificity on how to measure an 
interface's response time (e.g., when and how to calculate the 
beginning and end of the response period) and on whether and how the 
timeframe would apply to requests for large amounts of data where 
transmission might take longer than the proposed 3,500 milliseconds. 
They argued that to the extent the CFPB purported to justify the 
measurements it proposed by pointing to other jurisdictions, those 
other jurisdictions have different factual situations and are not 
properly comparable for these purposes. In addition, they argued that 
consensus standards should have no role in interface performance 
requirements because standards' role has traditionally been achieving 
interoperability, whereas the performance requirements do not pertain 
to interoperability. One argued that the CFPB is effectively promoting 
particular technologies, in contravention of CFPA section 1033(e), by 
requiring specific performance standards for the developer interface. 
Finally, they argued that the CFPA does not provide authority to adopt 
the proposed quantitative specifications.
Final Rule
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing the 
quantitative minimum performance specification in proposed Sec.  
1033.311(c)(1)(i), renumbered as Sec.  1033.311(c)(1), with certain 
modifications. First, the final rule does not include a numeric 
threshold for the time within which the interface must provide a 
response in order for the time to be commercially reasonable. Instead, 
the final rule (in Sec.  1033.311(c)(1)(iv)(C)) requires that a proper 
response be provided within a commercially reasonable amount of time 
and that indicia that the response time is commercially reasonable 
include conformance to an applicable consensus standard. The CFPB 
adopts this approach in the final rule because the proposed 3,500 
millisecond response time may not adequately take into account the 
variety of types and sizes of requests for covered data that data 
providers' developer interfaces will receive. In addition, final Sec.  
1033.311(c)(1) requires that the response rate be equal to or greater 
than 99.5 percent ``in each calendar month,'' as opposed to the 
proposed ``relevant time period, such as a month.'' The CFPB makes this 
change for two reasons: first, to prevent a data provider from 
calculating its developer interface's response rate over some other 
time period, or varying the time period, to make appear better its 
interface's response rate; and second, to align the calculation time 
period with the calendar month disclosure time period in Sec.  
1033.341(d).
    Information available to the CFPB indicates that the performance of 
data providers' developer interfaces is neither uniform nor always on 
par with what one would reasonably expect given the state of 
technology. Specifically, the state of technology enables consumer 
interfaces to operate at consistently high availability, performance, 
and data freshness levels, which many data providers' developer 
interfaces do not meet. With respect to uniformity, data from the 
Provider Collection indicates that providers report widely varying 
uptime and response time or latency measurements. This non-uniformity 
persists both across similarly situated providers and across the 
various consumer or developer interfaces a data provider may make 
available. See 88 FR 74796, 74815-16 (Oct. 31, 2023). Accordingly, the 
performance of data providers' developer interfaces needs both to 
improve and to become more consistent and predictable from where that 
performance is today.
    The quantitative minimum 99.5 percent response rate requirement in 
final Sec.  1033.311(c)(1) reflects the CFPB's determination that 
developer interface performance beneath that level cannot constitute 
commercially reasonable performance. The requirement ensures that data 
providers' developer interfaces perform at a sufficiently consistent 
and predictable level. The requirement implements CFPA section 1033(a), 
which requires data providers to make covered data available in an 
electronic form usable by authorized third parties, and ensures 
consistent availability of covered data, while contemplating that 
limited, unscheduled downtimes may occur.
    The CFPB has determined that the quantitative minimum 99.5 percent 
response rate is not too onerous. The minimum is in line with the 
results reported to the CFPB through the Provider Collection. See 88 FR 
74796, 74816 (Oct. 31, 2023). Further, based on public comments from 
third parties and results reported to the CFPB through the Provider 
Collection and the Aggregator Collection, the minimum is below levels 
being achieved by larger data providers' developer interfaces today 
pursuant to their data access agreements with third parties. That is 
significant evidence that where a given data provider today has a 
developer interface in place, it will be reasonably feasible for the 
data provider's interface to continue to meet the quantitative minimum 
performance requirement established by Sec.  1033.311(c)(1). It is 
possible over time that part 1033 going into effect will itself lead to 
an increased volume of data requests to larger data providers' extant 
developer interfaces. Nonetheless, in the CFPB's assessment, it is 
reasonably feasible for data providers to invest in and maintain their 
developer interfaces in a manner such that the increased volume does 
not degrade the interfaces' performance from their current levels, 
which, as noted, are above the quantitative minimum established in 
Sec.  1033.311(c)(1). The CFPB's establishment of the 99.5 percent 
minimum response rate is based on the rulemaking record before it and 
does not rely on required performance levels in other jurisdictions. As 
the record demonstrates, the CFPB did consider other jurisdictions' 
requirements and factual situations. However, the U.S. data sharing 
market is differentiable from other jurisdictions (for example, the 
U.S. has more depository institutions than is typical in other 
jurisdictions) and the CFPB's legal authorities are of course specific 
to U.S.

[[Page 90891]]

law. The CFPB's determination that interface performance beneath the 
99.5 percent minimum cannot be commercially reasonable appropriately 
reflects the rulemaking record, the U.S. data sharing market, and the 
CFPB's authority.
    The 99.5 percent response rate minimum is below levels commonly 
achieved by data providers' consumer interfaces today, even for 
consumer interfaces maintained by data providers with no developer 
interface. As the CFPB noted in the proposed rule, data providers 
through their consumer interfaces commonly make available an amount and 
variety of data broader than the set of covered data that is subject to 
part 1033. See 88 FR 74796, 74816 (Oct. 31, 2023). These facts indicate 
that where a given data provider today has a consumer interface but 
does not have a developer interface, it will be reasonable for the data 
provider to implement a developer interface that meets the minimum 
performance level required by Sec.  1033.311(c)(1). Moreover, the 
minimum will not apply to small depository institution data providers, 
because the final rule does not cover such depositories. All depository 
institutions subject to the final rule appear to maintain a consumer 
interface already and can reasonably implement a developer interface 
that meets the final rule's minimum performance requirements. In that 
regard, the final rule makes explicit that a data provider may be able 
to satisfy its developer interface obligation, including the 99.5 
percent response rate requirement, through contract with its service 
provider under which the service provider screen scrapes covered data 
from the data provider's consumer interface and makes the covered data 
available to authorized third parties through a developer interface 
that the service provider maintains on behalf of the data provider. 
This type of approach can meaningfully reduce the burden of performance 
requirements--including the quantitative minimum--through economies of 
scale achieved by service providers.
    The proper response definition in final Sec.  1033.311(c)(1)(iv) 
underlies the required 99.5 percent response rate. The CFPB proposed 
(in Sec.  1033.311(c)(1)(i)(D)) a proper response definition that 
excluded ``any message such as an error message provided during 
unscheduled downtime of the interface.'' The final rule (in Sec.  
1033.311(c)(1)(iv)) excludes from the proper response definition ``any 
message provided during unscheduled downtime of the interface.'' The 
CFPB neither intends nor effectuates any change to the substance of the 
proposed provision by omitting the clause ``such as an error message.'' 
Under the final rule, as under the proposal, the proper response 
definition excludes any message provided during unscheduled downtime of 
the interface.
    The proper response definition does not require in every case that 
covered data be returned. For example, assume a data provider has in 
place reasonable access caps, which comply with Sec.  1033.311(d), 
limiting the frequency with which the data provider receives and 
responds to requests for covered data from an authorized third party 
through its developer interface. Assume also the data provider has in 
place reasonable written policies and procedures, which comply with 
Sec.  1033.351(a), setting forth and describing such frequency 
restrictions and setting forth and describing the explanations the data 
provider's interface may provide for why a request to the interface was 
not fulfilled. Further, assume that the interface receives a request in 
excess of the documented reasonable frequency restrictions. Finally, 
assume that the interface provides a response to that request that (1) 
explains why the request was not fulfilled (in accord with Sec.  
1033.311(c)(1)(iv)(A)), (2) is consistent with the reasonable Sec.  
1033.351(a) policies and procedures (in accord with Sec.  
1033.311(c)(1)(iv)(B)), and (3) is provided within a commercially 
reasonable amount of time (in accord with Sec.  1033.311(c)(1)(iv)(C)). 
That response is a proper response under Sec.  1033.311(c)(1)(iv) and 
counts favorably toward the 99.5 percent response rate set forth in 
Sec.  1033.311(c)(1).
    The CFPB has determined that the quantitative minimum 99.5 percent 
response rate in Sec.  1033.311(c)(1) is sufficiently robust and will 
not result in a race to the bottom. Many smaller data providers that 
today do not have a developer interface will be required by the final 
rule to establish one. Section 1033.311(c)(1) establishes a necessary 
and appropriate floor for developer interface performance in these 
circumstances, beneath which interface performance cannot be 
commercially reasonable. At the same time, and particularly with 
respect to larger data providers, the CFPB emphasizes that the 
quantitative minimum is not a safe harbor. That is, it does not follow 
from a data provider's developer interface having met the quantitative 
minimum that the interface has satisfied the requirement of 
commercially reasonable performance established in Sec.  1033.311(c). 
In addition to the quantitative minimum, Sec.  1033.311(c)(2), 
discussed below, establishes indicia of what constitutes commercially 
reasonable performance. Those indicia include comparisons of a data 
provider's developer interface performance to consensus standards; to 
the developer interface performance of other similarly situated data 
providers, such as other larger data providers when the data provider 
is a larger data provider; and, to the performance of the data 
provider's consumer interface. These comparisons could indicate that a 
data provider's developer interface performance, and particularly a 
larger data provider's developer interface performance, is not 
commercially reasonable even if the performance meets the quantitative 
minimum. In other words, consideration of the indicia in Sec.  
1033.311(c)(2) could result in a determination, by an examiner for 
example, that a data provider's interface has not complied with the 
commercially reasonable performance requirement established in Sec.  
1033.311(c) notwithstanding that the interface met the quantitative 
minimum in Sec.  1033.311(c)(1).
    CFPA section 1021(b) states that the CFPA's objectives include, 
among other things, authorizing the CFPB to exercise its authorities 
under Federal consumer financial law, which includes CFPA section 1033, 
to ensure that consumers, defined in CFPA section 1002(4) to include 
consumers' authorized third party representatives, are provided with 
timely and understandable information. In addition, the title of CFPA 
section 1033 indicates that its objective is to establish a consumer 
right to access information. The requirements of Sec.  1033.311(c)(1) 
carry out these CFPA objectives by ensuring data providers respond to 
consumers' authorized third party representatives upon request in a 
manner that is commercially reasonable and that enables the 
representatives to access covered data in a usable electronic form. The 
requirements are consistent with the objective stated in CFPA section 
1033(e) of not requiring or promoting a particular technology; a data 
provider may use any technology or technologies it wishes so long as 
its systems perform at the required level. Further, the rulemaking 
record described in part II.A establishes that data providers' 
competitive incentives do not align with those of authorized third 
parties. In light of those differing incentives, the quantitative 
minimum performance requirement in Sec.  1033.311(c)(1) is necessary 
and appropriate to ensure covered persons do not avoid the requirement 
to make

[[Page 90892]]

covered data available to authorized third parties through their 
developer interfaces. Beneath that minimum, performance levels would 
not be sufficient to enable effective realization of the CFPA's goals.
Indicia of Compliance (Sec.  1033.311(c)(2))
Proposal
    The CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.311(c)(1)(ii) two indicia of 
whether performance of the interface is commercially reasonable. The 
first was whether performance meets the applicable performance 
specifications set forth in a qualified industry standard. The second 
was whether the interface's performance meets the applicable 
performance specifications achieved by the developer interfaces 
established and maintained by similarly situated data providers. As 
with the quantitative minimum discussed above, the CFPB proposed these 
indicia pursuant to its preliminary determination that the performance 
of data providers' developer interfaces should improve over time and 
become more consistent and predictable. The CFPB requested comment on 
whether additional indicia would be appropriate and, if so, what they 
should be. The CFPB also requested comment on whether the final rule, 
instead of referring broadly to ``applicable performance 
specifications,'' should name and describe certain specifications, such 
as the latency and uptime.
Comments
    Data provider commenters opposed the indicia. They stated that the 
requirement of commercially reasonable performance is sufficient and 
appropriate in and of itself. They further argued that qualified 
industry standards should not serve as indicia of commercially 
reasonable performance because the general purpose of standards has 
traditionally been interoperability and the level of developer 
interface performance does not relate to interoperability. If qualified 
industry standards were to serve for measuring commercially reasonable 
performance, however, many data providers thought they should serve as 
a safe harbor to give providers greater compliance certainty. They also 
argued that the performance of similarly situated providers' interfaces 
should not be among the indicia, because that would result in an ever-
spiraling-upward level of required performance. Moreover, they argued 
that under the CFPB's proposed rule they would have no way to ascertain 
the performance levels of similarly situated data providers' developer 
interfaces because there would be no public source for that 
information.
    Third party commenters supported the indicia. They argued that the 
indicia should reflect all metrics incorporated in the quantitative 
minimum specification in proposed Sec.  1033.311(c)(1)(i) (discussed 
above), such as response rate, response time, total downtime, total 
scheduled downtime, and notice of downtime. They also argued that the 
indicia of whether the interface meets the performance level of the 
interfaces of other providers should be supported by a regulatory 
disclosure mechanism for publicly reporting all of the metrics. This 
disclosure requirement is discussed under Sec.  1033.341(d) below.
Final Rule
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing Sec.  
1033.311(c)(1)(ii), renumbered as Sec.  1033.311(c)(2), with 
modifications. Final Sec.  1033.311(c)(2)(i) adds a third indicia: 
comparison to the performance of the data provider's consumer 
interface. As a result, under final Sec.  1033.311(c)(2)(i), indicia 
that a developer interface's performance is commercially reasonable as 
required by Sec.  1033.311(c) include (1) whether the interface's 
performance conforms to a consensus standard that is applicable to the 
data provider; (2) how the interface's performance compares to the 
performance levels achieved by the developer interfaces of similarly 
situated data providers; and (3) how the interface's performance 
compares to the performance levels achieved by the data provider's 
consumer interface.
    The CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.311(c)(1)(ii) that these indicia 
would be based on ``applicable performance specifications.'' In lieu of 
the general reference to applicable performance specifications, final 
Sec.  1033.311(c)(2)(ii) states that, for each of the above three 
indicia, relevant performance specifications include: (1) the 
interface's response rate as defined in Sec.  1033.311(c)(1) through 
(c)(1)(iv) (discussed above); (2) the interface's total amount of 
scheduled downtime; (3) the amount of time in advance of any scheduled 
downtime by which notice of the downtime is provided; (4) the 
interface's total amount of unscheduled downtime; and (5) the 
interface's response time.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ Section 1033.341(d) (discussed below) requires data 
providers to disclose each calendar month the response rates of 
their developer interfaces; nothing in part 1033 precludes data 
providers from reviewing such data to help them assess the 
commercial reasonableness of their own performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFPB has determined that the specificity of final Sec.  
1033.311(c)(2), relative to the proposed rule, gives sufficient clarity 
to data providers for how commercial reasonability of developer 
interface performance will be assessed. So long as developer interfaces 
meet the quantitative minimum performance requirement in Sec.  
1033.311(c)(1), it is necessary and appropriate for commercial 
reasonability to be assessed against indicia that can take account of 
changing technological advancements and other factors that may bear on 
reasonableness in this context. By the same token, removing these 
indicia references altogether would result in an insufficiently robust 
and overly vague requirement.
    It is appropriate for a consensus standard applicable to the data 
provider to serve as one of the three indicia of whether the 
performance of the data provider's developer interface is commercially 
reasonable. Standards bodies and the participants therein have 
expertise relevant to open banking issues, including but not limited to 
developer interface performance. The CFPB fully expects there will be 
give and take across industry participants in developing consensus 
standards for commercially reasonable developer interface performance. 
Consensus standards will serve as indicia, as relevant indicators, 
thereof, but will not be determinative. The CFPB believes it is 
appropriate for consensus standards to play this role.
    It is also appropriate for the developer interface performance of 
similarly situated data providers to serve as the second of the three 
indicia. The CFPB believes that comparing interface performance to the 
interfaces of other providers will not result in too onerous (or 
unstable) a standard. Such performance is among other indicia, and does 
not create a requirement to be better than peer performance. But to the 
extent that performance lies outside that norm, that can fairly serve 
as indicia that performance may lack commercial reasonableness. Black's 
Law Dictionary defines ``commercially reasonable'' as ``conducted in 
good faith and in accordance with commonly accepted commercial 
practice.'' \70\ Article 4A of the Uniform Commercial Code states that 
the commercial reasonableness of a security procedure is to be 
determined by considering, among other things, ``security procedures in 
general use by

[[Page 90893]]

customers and receiving banks similarly situated.'' UCC 4A-202(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Commercially reasonable, Black's Law Dictionary (12th ed. 
2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The performance of the data provider's consumer interface also 
serves appropriately as indicia of compliance. Data providers' consumer 
interfaces today generally achieve a level of performance that is on a 
par with the standards of commercial reasonability set forth in Sec.  
1033.311(c). In light of the functionality of consumer interfaces, 
their performance indicates that it is reasonable to expect developer 
interfaces to perform at similar levels. In addition, as the 
performance of consumer interfaces improves over time due to ongoing 
technological advancements, that improvement and those advancements 
will also indicate that it is reasonable for the performance of 
providers' developer interfaces to improve similarly. With these 
indicia, competitive pressure on consumer interface performance can 
also help ensure that data providers appropriately maintain the 
performance of developer interfaces, and do not allow that to revert to 
some mean below the level of commercially reasonable performance.
Access Caps (Sec.  1033.311(d))
    The CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.311(c)(2) to prohibit a data 
provider from unreasonably restricting the frequency with which it 
receives and responds to requests for covered data from an authorized 
third party through its developer interface. In other words, the CFPB 
proposed to permit a data provider to employ reasonable ``access 
caps.'' The CFPB preliminarily determined that this would appropriately 
effectuate data access rights by permitting the data provider to 
prevent an authorized third party from unduly burdening the data 
provider's interface and thereby negatively impacting its ability to 
respond to requests from other authorized third parties. At the same 
time, by prohibiting unreasonable caps, the proposed rule would have 
prevented the data provider from unduly impeding the data access of 
that authorized third party. The CFPB also proposed that access caps 
must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner and consistent with the 
reasonable written policies and procedures that the data provider 
establishes and maintains pursuant to Sec.  1033.351(a). Finally, the 
CFPB proposed that indicia that access caps are reasonable include that 
they adhere to a qualified industry standard. The CFPB requested 
comment on whether the final rule should differentiate between 
``consumer present'' data requests, where the consumer is online with 
the third party at the time of the request, versus other requests, 
where the third party is refreshing the consumer's data without the 
consumer being online at that time.
    Many commenters addressed the proposed treatment of access caps. 
Third party commenters generally opposed it as insufficient to prevent 
data providers from using such caps for pretextual reasons. They argued 
that a consumer is the one requesting data through an authorized third 
party and that applying an access cap thereby harms the consumer. In 
their view, the final rule should prohibit access caps by default and 
require data providers to demonstrate the reasonableness of any 
departure from that default.
    Data provider commenters generally supported the CFPB's proposal. 
One association representing small depository institutions argued that 
the CFPB should finalize the provision as proposed. Some argued, 
however, that data providers should have greater or total discretion to 
impose access caps. One questioned the CFPB's authority to impose any 
limit on such caps, asserting that automated batch requests from third 
parties do not count as consumer ``requests'' under CFPA section 
1033(a). A few argued that qualified industry standards should have no 
bearing on the reasonability of an access cap, because standards to 
date have not played such a role.
    Some third party and some data provider commenters stated that it 
would be appropriate for the CFPB's rule to distinguish between 
consumer-present requests versus other requests. These commenters 
stated that it would generally not be reasonable for a data provider to 
impose any cap on consumer-present data requests, whereas it would, or 
at least could, be reasonable in some circumstances for a data provider 
to impose such limits on other requests. Some also noted that third 
parties can and do address restrictions on consumer-not-present 
requests by, for example, submitting requests at off-peak times.
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing Sec.  
1033.311(c)(2), renumbered as Sec.  1033.311(d), as proposed, but with 
technical non-substantive edits for additional clarity. Reasonable 
access caps help ensure that requests from one authorized third party 
do not unduly burden the data provider's developer interface and 
thereby impede its ability to respond to requests from other authorized 
third parties. Barring unreasonable caps remains necessary to help 
ensure that caps do not unduly impede an authorized third party's data 
access.
    Under the final rule, indicia of reasonableness include adherence 
to a consensus standard on point. The CFPB believes that this provision 
will appropriately incentivize industry participants--data providers 
and third parties, including data aggregators--to work together towards 
workable standards that can take account of evolving data access 
technology and thereby provide a useful and enduring compliance 
resource. At the same time, such standards do not unduly restrict data 
providers because they do not represent regulatory requirements.
    On the basis of its own expertise and feedback from commenters of 
all types that access caps on consumer-present data requests would be 
detrimental to consumers and to the financial products and services 
that consumers are using or seek to use, the CFPB observes that access 
caps on consumer-present data requests generally will be unreasonable 
and that reasonable access caps will be confined to other requests such 
as ``batch'' requests--although that confinement is not enough, alone, 
to make them reasonable.\71\ Consumer presence indicates that the 
failure to provide a response promptly would have an immediate harmful 
effect on the consumer, especially if a consumer were enrolling in a 
new product or service for the first time, such that access caps would 
be unreasonable for this type of request, at least in the absence of 
some exceptional justification specific to the facts at hand. Industry 
participants continue to work to ensure interface availability for 
consumer-present requests by implementing adjustments on consumer-not-
present requests. Accordingly, permitting reasonable access caps, with 
consensus standards being indicia thereof, will encourage continued 
industry progress toward appropriate differentiation between consumer-
present and consumer-not-present requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ Contrary to some commenter assertions, the CFPB has the 
statutory authority to address access caps imposed on consumer-not-
present requests, such as batch requests. The CFPA defines 
``consumer'' to include consumers' representatives, such as 
authorized third parties. That a data request comes from an 
authorized third party, as opposed to from an individual consumer, 
accordingly has no bearing on whether the submission qualifies as a 
``request'' as that term is used in CFPA section 1033. Similarly, 
that section does not differentiate between batched and non-batched 
consumer requests for data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Security Specifications (Sec.  1033.311(e))
Access Credentials (Sec.  1033.311(e)(1))
    The CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.311(d)(1) to prohibit a data 
provider from allowing third parties to access its developer interface 
by using any credentials that a consumer uses to access the consumer 
interface. The

[[Page 90894]]

proposal explained that the possession and use of consumer credentials 
by third parties, such as through credential-based screen scraping, 
raises significant security, privacy, and accuracy risks to consumers 
and to the market for consumer-authorized data access. For example, 
consumers whose credentials are exposed in a third party data breach 
might suffer invasions of privacy or financial harms. The proposal 
covered funds-storing and payment accounts, so stolen credentials could 
enable bad actors to cause unauthorized transactions or fraudulent use 
of consumers' personal financial data. The proposal also explained that 
credential-based screen scraping posed challenges to risk-management, 
including the difficulty of distinguishing legitimate from illegitimate 
access attempts.
    The CFPB requested feedback on two specific issues. First, the CFPB 
asked about arrangements in which a third party procures the consumer's 
authority to access data, then ``passes'' the consumer directly to the 
data provider, which then authenticates the consumer using the 
consumer's digital banking credentials, before ultimately providing the 
third party with a secure access token. Second, the CFPB asked about 
situations in which a third party acts as both a third party and a 
service provider that develops and maintains a developer interface on 
behalf of a data provider.
    Although the proposal would have prevented data providers from 
using credential-based screen scraping to comply with their developer 
interface requirements, the proposal did not explicitly state whether 
data providers could block screen scraping. The proposal noted that 
during the rule's implementation period, and for data accessed outside 
its coverage, the CFPB plans to monitor the market to evaluate whether 
data providers are blocking screen scraping without a bona fide and 
particularized risk management concern or without making a more secure 
and structured method of data access available.
    The CFPB received several comments on proposed Sec.  
1033.311(d)(1). Numerous commenters compared APIs to screen scraping in 
discussing proposed Sec.  1033.311(d)(1). These commenters were nearly 
unanimous in stating that APIs have advantages over screen scraping in 
accuracy, consumer privacy, and data security. For example, a trade 
association commenter stated that APIs are created to limit access to 
specifically authorized consumer data, which prevents third parties 
from accessing unnecessary consumer data. Other commenters stated that 
high-volume screen scraping can impact the availability of financial 
institution consumer-facing websites. However, a few credit union 
commenters stated that APIs introduced security risks that could allow 
bad actors to compromise consumers' accounts. And a community bank 
trade association commenter said that discouraging screen scraping in 
favor of developer interface requirements could violate CFPA section 
1033(e)'s provision regarding ``require[ing] or promot[ing] the use of 
any particular technology in order to develop systems for compliance.''
    A data aggregator commenter asked for confirmation that consumer 
credentials may be used in access portals that redirect consumers to 
enter credentials on the data provider's website. Another data 
aggregator commenter asked the CFPB to allow arrangements in which 
third parties provide information sufficient for the data provider to 
authenticate the consumer rather than having data providers directly 
authenticate the consumer themselves. Another data aggregator commenter 
said that existing data access agreements that allow for credential-
based access should be permitted while data providers establish their 
developer interfaces. A group of industry commenters and an academic 
institution requested clarity on whether existing data access 
connections would need to be re-established.
    Several data providers and data provider trade association 
commenters asked the CFPB to authorize data providers to block screen 
scraping. One commenter stated that data providers should be required 
to take reasonable steps to prevent screen scraping once they have 
established developer interfaces. These commenters echoed many of the 
security, privacy, and accuracy risks of screen scraping discussed in 
the proposal. A few of these commenters asked whether data providers 
were obligated to permit screen scraping if their developer interfaces 
failed to meet the final rule's performance standards. One data 
provider commenter asked how data providers should treat screen 
scraping of non-covered data.
    The CFPB is renumbering proposed Sec.  1033.311(d)(1) as Sec.  
1033.311(e)(1) and finalizing the substance of the provision largely as 
proposed for the reasons discussed herein, with additional clarity 
regarding service providers. Final Sec.  1033.311(e)(1) provides that a 
data provider must not allow a third party to access the data 
provider's developer interface by using any credentials that a consumer 
uses to access the consumer interface. Final Sec.  1033.311(e)(1) also 
provides that a contract between a data provider and the data 
provider's service provider, pursuant to which the service provider 
establishes or maintains the data provider's developer interface, does 
not violate Sec.  1033.311(e)(1) if the contract provides that the 
service provider will make covered data available, in a form and manner 
that satisfies the requirements of part 1033, to authorized third 
parties through the developer interface by means of the service 
provider using a consumer's credentials to access the data from the 
data provider's consumer interface.
    As discussed in the proposal, credential-based screen scraping 
creates risks to consumer privacy, accuracy, and data security, and 
poses challenges to data providers' systems. A core objective of the 
final rule is to transition the market away from using screen scraping 
to access covered data. Final Sec.  1033.311(e)(1) supports this goal 
by preventing data providers from relying on a third party's use of 
consumer credentials to access the developer interface.
    The CFPB disagrees with the suggestion that final Sec.  
1033.311(e)(1) risks inappropriately promoting any particular 
technology. Final Sec.  1033.311(e)(1) sets forth a requirement 
regarding the use of consumer credentials to access the developer 
interface, but it allows data providers to use any technology in 
designing their developer interfaces.
    Entities that act as service providers to data providers may, on 
behalf of those data providers, develop, deploy, and maintain developer 
interfaces whose technical specifications and requirements entail those 
service providers retaining and using consumers' credentials. Final 
Sec.  1033.311(e)(1) does not restrict a data provider from allowing 
its own service provider that develops, deploys, or maintains the data 
provider's developer interface to use or possess consumer credentials 
to facilitate the provision of covered data to a consumer, even if the 
data provider's service provider also operates as an authorized third 
party. The final rule clarifies this point by stating in Sec.  
1033.311(e)(1) that a contract between a data provider and the data 
provider's service provider, pursuant to which the service provider 
maintains the data provider's developer interface, does not violate 
Sec.  1033.311(e)(1) if the contract provides that the service provider 
will make covered data available, in a form and manner that satisfies 
the requirements of part 1033, to authorized third parties through the 
developer interface by means of the service provider using a consumer's

[[Page 90895]]

credentials to access the data from the data provider's consumer 
interface.
    The central factor in analyzing various arrangements between data 
provider and third party for providing access through the developer 
interface is whether the third party uses consumer credentials to 
access the developer interface. For example, a third party might 
procure the consumer's authority to access data, then ``pass'' the 
consumer directly to the data provider, which then authenticates the 
consumer using the consumer's consumer interface credentials. This 
arrangement would not violate final Sec.  1033.311(e)(1) because the 
authorized third party itself never accesses, uses, or retains the 
consumer's credentials. But if a third party such as a data aggregator 
sought to access or retain consumer credentials as a service to support 
access to consumer permissioned data by a variety of additional third 
parties, such an arrangement would violate final Sec.  1033.311(e)(1) 
because the third party itself accesses and retains the consumer's 
credentials.
    Nothing in the proposal would have precluded data providers from 
blocking screen scraping, and nothing in the final rule does so. 
However, data providers may act improperly if they attempt to block 
screen scraping across the board without making the requested data 
available through a more secure alternative. Depending on the facts and 
circumstances, such interference with the consumer's ability to share 
their personal financial data may violate the CFPA's prohibition on 
acts or practices that are unfair, deceptive, or abusive. However, if a 
data provider has established a developer interface that complies 
with--or in markets not yet covered by this final rule, conforms to--
the requirements of this final rule, then blocking screen scraping may 
further consumer privacy and data security while ensuring that 
consumers are able to authorize access to their financial data in a 
manner that is safe, secure, reliable and promoting of competition. 
Regarding third parties with prior arrangements that relied on 
credential-based access, once data providers have enabled the safe, 
secure, and reliable forms of data access envisioned in this rule, the 
CFPB cautions that screen scraping attempts by third parties to reach 
data covered by such arrangements could well be limited by the CFPA's 
prohibition on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. 12 
U.S.C. 5531.
Security Program (Sec.  1033.311(e)(2))
    Proposed Sec.  1033.311(d)(2)(i) would have required data providers 
to apply to their developer interfaces an information security program 
that satisfies the applicable rules issued pursuant to section 501 of 
the GLBA, 15 U.S.C. 6801. Under proposed Sec.  1033.311(d)(2)(ii), a 
data provider that is not subject to section 501 of the GLBA would have 
been required to apply to its developer interface the information 
security program required by the FTC's Standards for Safeguarding 
Customer Information, 16 CFR part 314. The CFPB preliminarily 
determined that the GLBA Safeguards Framework appropriately addresses 
data security risks for developer interfaces in the market for 
consumer-authorized financial data. The CFPB requested comment as to 
whether a general policies-and-procedures requirement would be more 
appropriate than the GLBA Safeguards Framework.
    In the proposal, the CFPB noted that the GLBA Safeguards Framework 
generally requires each financial institution to develop, implement, 
and maintain a comprehensive written information security program that 
contains safeguards that are appropriate to the institution's size and 
complexity, the nature and scope of the institutions' activities, and 
the sensitivity of the customer information at issue. These safeguards 
must address specific elements set forth in the GLBA Safeguards 
Framework. The CFPB noted the GLBA Safeguards Framework provides a 
process for ensuring that such a program is commensurate with the risks 
faced by the financial institution rather than a rigid list of 
prescriptions. The proposal noted that this flexible, risk-based 
approach allows the GLBA Safeguards Framework to adapt to changing 
technology and emerging data security threats.
    Many commenters from different interest groups supported this use 
of the GLBA Safeguards Framework. One data provider commenter stated 
that the GLBA Safeguards Framework would ensure consistent data 
security standards for all ecosystem participants. Additionally, one 
consumer advocate commenter said the proposed rule would close gaps in 
data security coverage. On the other hand, some data provider 
commenters opposed the use of the GLBA Safeguards Framework on the 
grounds that the data providers are already subject to data security 
requirements. Additionally, some commenters pointed out that the FTC's 
Safeguards Rule was not identical to prudential regulators' Safeguards 
Guidelines and is not subject to FTC supervision. Specifically, 
commenters were concerned that the FTC lacks supervisory authority and 
cannot examine institutions under its jurisdiction for compliance with 
its Safeguards Rule.
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing Sec.  
1033.311(e)(2) as proposed. As such, under Sec.  1033.311(e)(2)(i), a 
data provider must apply to the developer interface an information 
security program that satisfies the applicable rules issued pursuant to 
section 501 of the GLBA, 15 U.S.C. 6801. Alternatively, under Sec.  
1033.311(e)(2)(ii), if the data provider is not subject to section 501 
of the GLBA, the data provider must apply to its developer interface 
the information security program required by the FTC's Standards for 
Safeguarding Customer Information, 16 CFR part 314.
    The CFPB has determined that the GLBA Safeguards Framework will 
best mitigate information security weaknesses within open banking 
transactions. The flexible nature of the Safeguards approach allows 
data providers some discretion in how they protect customers from 
emerging threats to their data. As noted in the proposal, the FTC's 
Safeguards Rule includes slightly more prescriptive requirements, such 
as encryption, for certain elements, because the Safeguards Rule must 
be usable by a financial institution to determine appropriate data 
security measures without regular interaction with an examiner from a 
supervising agency.
    Additionally, subjecting data providers to the GLBA Safeguards 
Framework is not a duplicative requirement on data providers. The 
Safeguards Framework allows information security programs to adapt to 
risks specific to the developer interface. Without this provision and 
its specific application to the developer interface, it is not clear 
consumers would have the same protection over their data across 
different types of data provider entities. Further, the CFPB needs to 
be able to adequately supervise data providers for their data security 
compliance. Private rules such as NACHA data security requirements or 
Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards require a private entity 
to determine what conduct complies with the rule without oversight from 
the CFPB. Conversely, the GLBA Safeguards Framework provides a 
consistent, yet flexible approach that is not dictated by a private 
entity.
    Section 1033.311(e)(2) implements CFPA section 1033(a) by 
clarifying how a data provider must make available data upon request to 
a consumer, including an authorized third party. Establishing a 
consistent set of data security requirements will help ensure that 
developer interfaces are only

[[Page 90896]]

making data available to consumers and authorized third parties 
consistent with the scope of a consumer's request and do not present 
unreasonable risks to the security, confidentiality, and integrity of 
covered data.
4. Interface Access (Sec.  1033.321)
    The CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.321 to clarify the circumstances 
under which a data provider would be permitted to block a consumer's or 
third party's access to its consumer or developer interface without 
violating the general obligation of CFPA section 1033(a). The proposal 
explained that it would be inconsistent with CFPA section 1033(a) for a 
data provider to make available covered data to persons or entities 
that present unreasonable risks to the security of the data provider's 
safety and soundness, information systems, or consumers, or where a 
data provider could not take steps to ensure they are making available 
covered data to an actual consumer or authorized third party.
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing Sec.  
1033.321 with several changes designed to clarify the operation of each 
paragraph, reduce the risk of unjustified denials, and reduce the 
burden on data providers of assessing third party risks. As discussed 
in greater detail below, final Sec.  1033.321(a) generally provides 
that a data provider does not violate the general obligation in Sec.  
1033.201(a)(1) by denying a consumer or third party access to all 
elements of the interface described in Sec.  1033.301(a) if granting 
access would be inconsistent with policies and procedures reasonably 
designed to comply with legal requirements described in Sec.  
1033.321(a)(1)(i) through (iii), and if the denial is reasonable 
pursuant to Sec.  1033.321(b). Final Sec.  1033.321(b) describes 
requirements that a denial must meet to be reasonable. Final Sec.  
1033.321(c) lists indicia bearing on the reasonableness of a denial 
pursuant to Sec.  1033.321(b). And final Sec.  1033.321(d) provides 
conditions that are each a sufficient basis for denying access to a 
third party.
Denials Related to Risk Management (Sec.  1033.321(a))
Proposal
    Proposed Sec.  1033.321(a) generally would have provided that a 
data provider could deny a consumer or third party access to its 
consumer or developer interface based on risk management concerns. 
Specifically, the proposal provided that, subject to a reasonableness 
standard described in proposed Sec.  1033.321(b), a denial is not 
unreasonable if it is necessary to comply with the section 39 of the 
Federal Deposit Insurance Act or section 501 of the GLBA.
    In proposing to allow data providers to deny access based on risk 
management concerns, the CFPB recognized that depository institutions 
have legal obligations to operate in a safe and sound manner, and both 
depository and nondepository institutions have other information 
security-related obligations.\72\ The prudential regulators have issued 
supervisory guidance that sets forth risk management principles and 
other considerations that depository institutions can leverage when 
developing and implementing risk management practices. For example, in 
2023 the prudential regulators issued the Interagency Guidance on 
Third-Party Relationships: Risk Management.\73\ The proposal also 
recognized that consumers might suffer harm if the final rule did not 
allow data providers to deny a third party access to the data 
provider's developer interface where the data provider has legitimate 
risk management concerns. Indeed, the proposal stated that it would be 
inconsistent with CFPA section 1033(a) for a data provider to make 
available covered data to persons or entities that present unreasonable 
risks to safety and soundness or information security. At the same 
time, the CFPB expressed concern about risk management being used to 
frustrate a consumer's right to access data under CFPA section 1033, 
and about incentives that data providers might have to deny access. 
Proposed Sec.  1033.321 was intended to accommodate these 
considerations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ See, e.g., 12 U.S.C. 1831p-1; Interagency Guidelines 
Establishing Standards for Safety and Soundness, 12 CFR part 30, 
app. A (OCC), 12 CFR part 208, app. D-1 (Bd. of Governors of the 
Fed. Rsrv. Sys.); and 12 CFR part 364, app. A (FDIC).
    \73\ 88 FR 37920 (June 9, 2023). See also Bd. of Governors of 
the Fed. Rsrv. Sys., FDIC, OCC, Third-Party Relationships: A Guide 
for Community Banks (May 2024), https://occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2024/pub-third-party-risk-management-guide-for-community-banks.pdf; Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Rsrv. Sys, FDIC, OCC, 
Conducting Due Diligence on Financial Technology Companies A Guide 
for Community Banks, (Aug. 2021), https://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2021/nr-ia-2021-85a.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal also sought to illuminate various aspects of proposed 
Sec.  1033.321's operation. For example, the CFPB generally described 
denials of access as applicable to third parties or consumers, rather 
than to specific data fields requested by third parties or consumers. 
This was because, in the CFPB's view, third parties are in the best 
position to determine what covered data are reasonably necessary to 
provide the consumer's requested product or service. See 88 FR 74796, 
74823 (Oct. 31, 2023). And the CFPB explained that the exceptions under 
CFPA section 1033, set forth in proposed Sec.  1033.221, generally 
would not be appropriate for data providers to use to address risk 
management concerns. See 88 FR 74796, 74820 (Oct. 31, 2023).
    The CFPB requested comment on additional ways to harmonize the risk 
management obligations of data providers with CFPA section 1033's data 
access right for consumers and authorized third parties. The CFPB also 
requested comment on the extent to which CFPB rules or guidance, or 
other sources, should address whether a data provider's denial of third 
party access to a developer interface under Sec.  1033.321(a) would be 
reasonable with respect to any particular risk management practices.
Comments
    The CFPB received numerous comments on this proposed provision. 
Several commenters, mostly data providers and data provider 
associations, said the proposal properly incorporates third party risk 
management principles to third party access. Many data provider 
commenters asserted that their prudential regulators expect a 
relatively high degree of vetting of third parties accessing data with 
consumer authorization. Several data provider commenters, and a 
research institute commenter, stated that third party risk management 
obligations applied even to third party relationships not initiated by 
the data provider.
    Although these commenters generally supported allowing data 
providers to deny access to third parties, most were concerned that the 
proposed grounds for reasonable denials might be too narrow. For 
example, several data provider trade association commenters sought 
clarification that reasonable grounds for denying access would include 
concerns over fraud, reputational risk, or safety and soundness.
    Some of these commenters stated that safety and soundness risks 
might be raised by the volume of data requested by a third party, by an 
unmanageable pace in onboarding third parties, or by third parties with 
insufficient financial resources to reimburse the data provider for 
unauthorized transfers. Several data providers and trade association 
commenters said that data providers reasonably should be able to deny 
access consistent with interagency guidance on third party risk 
management. Several commenters stated that data providers should be 
able to

[[Page 90897]]

deny access based on the conduct of the third party, such as its data 
minimization practices, its compliance with EFTA and Regulation E, the 
content of its privacy policies, and its ability to manage downstream 
data recipients. Several commenters asked the CFPB to provide that a 
third party's refusal to agree to reasonable risk-related contractual 
terms would justify denying access. A group of data provider trade 
association commenters asked for guidance related to international 
third parties, and one trade association commenter stated that 
communicating denial reasons to a third party on an OFAC sanctions list 
might require a data provider to violate the law. A trade association 
commenter asked for general examples of reasonable and unreasonable 
denials, and a bank commenter asked for clarification that data 
providers may deny access to data aggregators. A bank commenter stated 
that the rule should clarify that the obligation on data providers to 
make covered data available to authorized third parties would apply 
only for authorized third parties domiciled in the U.S. The commenter 
stated that third parties that are not domiciled in the U.S. may be 
subject to different privacy or data protection laws and that sharing 
data with such entities could undermine consumer protections and 
complicate risk management and liability.
    Many data providers and data provider trade association commenters 
stated that the proposed rule appeared to contemplate a level of 
vetting of third parties that is infeasible. These commenters stated 
that data providers could be overwhelmed by the number of third parties 
attempting to access consumer data and would lack the resources to vet 
each third party to the degree required for service providers.
    These commenters recommended that the final rule include various 
changes to reduce the burden of vetting third parties. Several data 
providers and data provider trade association commenters stated that 
the rule should provide a safe harbor for data providers who grant 
access to third parties making representations of their data security 
practices. Other data provider commenters requested safe harbor from 
liability for any harm caused by third parties. A few commenters stated 
that data providers should be allowed to negotiate data access 
agreements with provisions governing indemnification, insurance, and 
other risk-related terms. Two commenters stated that data providers 
should be given a reasonable period of time to vet third parties. 
Finally, several commenters said that the CFPB should supervise data 
aggregators and third parties, which would reduce the perceived risk of 
third parties.
    In contrast, other commenters, including many third parties, and a 
few consumer advocates and research organizations, stated that the 
proposal improperly suggests that data providers should vet third 
parties as if they were service providers. Unlike other third party 
relationships, these commenters said, in the context of consumer-
authorized data sharing, a third party is operating as the consumer 
rather than providing services to the data provider. A data aggregator 
commenter stated that data providers' interests were often opposed to 
the interests of third parties, which incentivized denying access.
    These commenters requested the final rule include additional 
changes designed to reduce the risk that data providers deny access on 
illegitimate grounds or otherwise impair consumer-authorized data 
access. Specifically, a research institute commenter stated that the 
rule should accommodate existing data access methods that are similar 
to the final rule's requirements so that data providers do not block 
them once the final rule takes effect. A few commenters recommended 
requiring data providers to use a standardized risk assessment method. 
One third party commenter stated that denials should be justified by 
policies and procedures that have been approved by the data provider's 
prudential regulator. A few of these commenters recommended prohibiting 
data access agreements between data providers and third parties 
because, they said, such agreements increase transaction costs and 
create inconsistent demands on third parties. Some of these commenters 
recommended changes related to the transparency of denials, such as 
requiring data providers to disclose information about their denials or 
the performance of their developer interfaces. Some commenters 
recommended changes to the process of onboarding, such as requiring 
data providers to operate in good faith, creating a presumption that 
delays in granting access of greater than two months violate the final 
rule, and requiring data providers to grant access once a third party 
has established a remediation plan for any risk identified by a data 
provider. Finally, a few commenters said that third parties and 
consumer advocates should be allowed to formally dispute any denials of 
access by reporting them to the CFPB.
    Many types of commenters, including third parties and data 
providers, asked the CFPB to coordinate with the prudential regulators 
on risk management issues. Some of these commenters asked for guidance 
specific to consumer-authorized data access, while others offered 
specific suggestions. Several third parties and research institute 
commenters stated that the CFPB and prudential regulators should 
clarify that risk management for authorized third parties is limited to 
data security or that the agencies' third party risk management 
guidance is inapplicable. A data provider and a trade association 
commenter stated that the FFIEC should identify an accreditation 
standard for third party information security. One bank commenter 
stated that the CFPB should provide guidance on risk management for 
data providers not subject to prudential regulation. Two commenters 
recommended that the agencies provide guidance stating that Regulations 
E and Z sufficiently address liability for any harms resulting from 
third party data access. Two commenters asked the CFPB and the 
prudential regulators to develop a process for resolving any potential 
conflicts between the final rule and prudential standards.
Final Rule
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing Sec.  
1033.321(a) with certain substantive, clarifying, and organizational 
changes. Final Sec.  1033.321(a) provides that a data provider does not 
violate the general obligation in Sec.  1033.201(a)(1) by denying a 
consumer or third party \74\ access to all elements of the interface 
described in Sec.  1033.301(a) if: (1) granting access would be 
inconsistent with policies and procedures reasonably designed to comply 
with: (i) safety and soundness standards of a prudential regulator, as 
defined at 12 U.S.C. 5481(24), of the data provider; (ii) information 
security standards required by section 501 of the GLBA, 15 U.S.C. 6801; 
or (iii) other applicable laws and regulations regarding risk 
management; and (2) the denial is reasonable pursuant to Sec.  
1033.321(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Regarding comments asking whether a data provider may deny 
access to a data aggregator, the term ``third party'' is defined in 
the final rule to include data aggregators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the proposal, the CFPB recognizes that data 
providers have obligations regarding risk management. For example, 
depository institutions must operate in a safe and sound manner in 
compliance with applicable laws and regulations. And depository 
institutions and other data providers subject to the GLBA must ensure 
the security of the customer

[[Page 90898]]

information that they collect and maintain. A final rule that compels 
data access regardless of these other legal obligations would create 
risks to data providers and consumers. But the CFPB also understands 
that data providers face some competitive incentives to deny access to 
third parties in ways that could threaten a consumer's right to access 
their data under CFPA section 1033.
    The CFPB has made several changes to clarify the operation of the 
different elements in Sec.  1033.321(a). First, the CFPB has revised 
aspects of the general standard proposed in Sec.  1033.321(a). 
Specifically, the proposed rule referred to denials ``based on risk 
management concerns'' but did not specify the nature of these concerns 
or the meaning of denying access ``based on'' these concerns. 
Commenters also sought clarity about the relationship between the 
authorities cited in proposed Sec.  1033.321(a) and the section's 
general term for risk management obligations.
    Final Sec.  1033.321(a) has been restructured to clarify that 
safety and soundness standards and information security standards are 
two legal requirements that might justify denying access, rather than 
specify an exhaustive list of grounds for denial. The CFPB has modified 
the proposed description of safety and soundness by removing the 
reference to section 39 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. This 
change reflects the fact that safety and soundness standards originate 
from a broader array of legal authorities and avoids implying that 
banks and savings associations are the only depository institutions 
with safety and soundness obligations. The final rule provides these 
specific examples because the CFPB understands that they are especially 
relevant to decisions regarding third party access. But final Sec.  
1033.321(a)(2)(iii) also provides a catchall provision for other 
applicable laws and regulations regarding risk management to make clear 
that obligations regarding risk management may be found in other 
sources, including those raised by commenters. For example, denials may 
be justified by a third party's presence on a list released by OFAC, 
such as the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons 
list,\75\ or by requirements to prevent money laundering and terrorist 
financing under the Bank Secrecy Act and the Corporate Transparency 
Act. See 31 U.S.C. 5311, 5336. This catchall provision also ensures 
that data providers that are not supervised by the prudential 
regulators are able to deny access when warranted under the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ Off. of Foreign Asset Control, U.S. Dep't of Treas., 
Sanctions List Service, https://ofac.treasury.gov/sanctions-list-service (last visited Oct. 16, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to commenters who requested the ability to deny access 
using guidance issued by the prudential regulators, the CFPB has 
determined that denials must ultimately be grounded in legal 
requirements. The final rule implements consumers' data access rights 
in a binding, enforceable regulation. Failure to ground a denial in 
another legal obligation could allow non-binding, unenforceable 
guidance to override the final rule, which would frustrate Congress's 
purposes in enacting CFPA section 1033. The obligations enumerated in 
Sec.  1033.321(a)(1)--safety and soundness standards, information 
security standards, and other laws and regulations regarding risk 
management--are all binding, enforceable legal requirements. However, 
the CFPB understands that data providers develop and apply risk 
management policies and procedures to support their compliance with 
underlying statutes and regulations, an exercise that may be informed 
by non-binding guidance, among other sources. To reflect the role of 
policies and procedures and avoid excessively restricting the sources 
of information relevant to compliance, final Sec.  1033.321(a)(1) 
refers to ``policies and procedures reasonably designed to comply 
with'' legal requirements. The CFPB assesses that these changes answer 
many of the questions raised by commenters regarding the types of risks 
covered by Sec.  1033.321(a), whether specific references to 
authorities are illustrative or exhaustive, and how agency guidance 
relates to denial decisions.
    Final Sec.  1033.321(a)(1) also provides that a denial is justified 
if granting access would be ``inconsistent'' with policies and 
procedures ``reasonably designed'' to comply with the enumerated legal 
requirements. In using the term ``necessary'' in reference to specific 
statutory obligations, the proposed rule could have been read to apply 
a strict necessity standard to risk management obligations that a data 
provider might use to justify a denial. The CFPB has determined that a 
different approach is more appropriate to the nature of risk 
management. The CFPB understands that requirements to avoid unsafe or 
unsound practices and threats to the security of customer information 
generally are not defined with precision. Instead, they are evaluated 
based on constantly changing factual circumstances and managed by 
programs that are flexible enough to consider various factors.
    The final rule's approach is intended to account for the 
flexibility and discretion that data providers exercise in designing 
and implementing policies and procedures regarding risk management. In 
the context of consumers' data access rights, the CFPB has determined 
that it is appropriate for data providers to exercise this discretion 
by attempting to grant access unless doing so would be inconsistent 
with reasonably designed policies and procedures. Whether a denial is 
the result of policies and procedures that are ``reasonably designed'' 
will depend on the circumstances. If a data provider identifies a risk 
that might call for denying access to a third party, it must 
effectively consider how those policies and procedures can tailor any 
restriction on data access to the risk presented. In analyzing the 
extent of the risks presented by the third party, the data provider 
should take into account the fact that a consumer will have authorized 
the third party to access data, or that certain risks are mitigated by 
operation of part 1033. Policies and procedures would not be reasonably 
designed, for instance if they do not account for the protections of 
subpart D of this rule that address a third party's potential use of 
consumer-authorized data. In evaluating for whether policies and 
procedures are reasonably designed, the CFPB will closely evaluate 
whether the data provider has effectively considered how to avoid 
burdening the CFPA section 1033 access right while also complying with 
applicable laws and regulations regarding risk management. Policies and 
procedures will not be ``reasonably designed'' for purposes of Sec.  
1033.321(a)(1) if their design does not take account of whether 
alternative practices would be comparably effective but less burdensome 
to the CFPA section 1033 access right.
    The final rule also separately enumerates the reasonableness 
element of a denial from the other requirements justifying the denial. 
Under final Sec.  1033.321, a denial would have to be justified by at 
least one of three legal requirements provided in Sec.  1033.321(a)(1) 
and would have to be reasonable pursuant to Sec.  1033.321(a)(2). The 
reasonableness element in Sec.  1033.321(a)(2) is elaborated on in 
Sec.  1033.321(b), which provides requirements for reasonable denials. 
Final Sec.  1033.321(a) also adds the new phrase ``all elements of '' 
the interface described in Sec.  1033.301(a). This change better 
reflects the fact that denials of access under Sec.  1033.321 involve a

[[Page 90899]]

denial of access in its entirety. A denial would not be appropriate if 
it applied only to certain aspects of the developer interface, or only 
to certain data fields, because it would not affect ``all elements'' of 
the interface. As stated in the proposal, the CFPB has determined that 
consumers and third parties are in the best position to know which 
covered data fields are reasonably necessary to provide a requested 
product or service. Similarly, a denial would not be reasonable if it 
were based on the volume of data a third party requested to provide the 
consumer's requested product or service. Concerns over the volume of 
data requested are appropriately addressed by final Sec.  1033.311(d), 
which provides data providers flexibility regarding the frequency with 
which they receive or respond to requests for covered data, subject to 
certain limitations.
    Final Sec.  1033.321 does not require data providers to vet third 
parties. Instead, it recognizes that data providers will need to take 
account of their risk management obligations in this context. Several 
comments seemed premised on the existence of tension between granting 
third parties access to data with consumer authorization and managing 
risk. In general, the CFPB views data providers' risk management 
practices as fundamentally compatible with CFPA section 1033's data 
access obligations. Indeed, the final rule is designed to enable data 
access in a safe and secure manner, which will align the final rule 
with prudential imperatives. But in cases where a data provider's legal 
requirements regarding risk management would call for denying access, 
final Sec.  1033.321 prevents data providers from having to choose 
between conflicting legal responsibilities.
    The CFPB offers several additional points in response to comments 
regarding situations that might justify a denial. First, denials would 
be unjustified if they are based solely on a data provider's policies 
and procedures that override the substantive protections found in the 
final rule, such as asserting that the authorization procedures and 
obligations for third parties seeking to access covered data on 
consumers' behalf are insufficient. See part IV.D below. Depending on 
the circumstances, such a denial could be the result of policies and 
procedures that are not reasonably designed under Sec.  1033.321(a)(1), 
or it could be unreasonable under Sec.  1033.321(a)(2). The final rule 
provides a means for consumers to effectuate their right under CFPA 
section 1033 to authorize access to their covered data. And the final 
rule contains numerous provisions that the CFPB has determined will 
allow consumers to realize the benefits of data access while ensuring 
that third parties are acting on behalf of consumers. Denying access 
because a third party intends to follow the final rule's protections 
rather than a data provider's alternative protections would infringe on 
a consumer's data access rights. For example, it would be unreasonable 
for a data provider to deny access because a third party refuses to 
comply with a secondary use limitation that forbids the third party 
from using covered data to improve the product or service the consumer 
requested, as permitted under final Sec.  1033.421(c). Similarly, it 
would be unreasonable for a data provider to deny access because a 
third party's certification statement reflects the fact that it is 
subject to the GLBA Safeguards Rule rather than the interagency 
Safeguards Guidelines.
    Second, the CFPB intends for final Sec.  1033.321 to give data 
providers sufficient flexibility to manage the onboarding of third 
parties. The CFPB understands that data providers may need to onboard 
third parties in a staggered manner, and that failure to manage this 
process could incapacitate data providers' systems and the security of 
consumers' data. Accordingly, denying access to a third party until it 
can be properly onboarded may be necessary to comply with a data 
provider's legal obligations regarding risk management. Moreover, as 
described in part I, most third party access is currently achieved 
through the use of data aggregators. The CFPB anticipates that this 
arrangement will continue for the immediate future, which should reduce 
any implementation burden on data providers associated with the volume 
of third party requests. Regarding onboarding third parties that are 
not domiciled in the U.S., final Sec.  1033.321 gives data providers 
appropriate flexibility to deny access based on risk management 
obligations.
    Regarding data access agreements, the final rule does not prohibit 
specific contractual arrangements. A blanket prohibition on such 
agreements would be unjustified because they may be a valid tool for 
managing risk. But denials based on failure to agree to certain 
arrangements would need to satisfy the requirements of final Sec.  
1033.321. For the same reason, the CFPB declines to create either 
express regulatory authorization for or prohibition against onboarding 
arrangements that seek third parties' assumption of particular 
allocations of liability. Similarly, the CFPB declines to create 
regulatory authorization for or prohibition against similar terms 
seeking specific warranties of insurance associated with such 
allocations. The same principles regarding denials under final Sec.  
1033.321 apply to denials in this context as well. If ``required'' 
onboarding arrangements are impermissible under final Sec.  1033.321, a 
refusal to enable interface access would be improper. If such 
arrangements are permissible under final Sec.  1033.321, a refusal to 
accept them can justify a denial of access.
    Given the range of situations involving consumer-authorized data 
access, these principles do not yield simple one-size-fits-all 
requirements such as ``all liabilities run with the data'' or ``no 
liability allocation can be reached in onboarding agreements.'' In 
response to the range of comments provided, however, the CFPB is 
providing additional guidance here as to onboarding arrangements that 
it considers more likely to raise concerns under Sec.  1033.321.
    First, a data provider seeking to onboard a third party to a 
developer interface in accordance with obligations under this rule and 
under applicable risk management requirements is not engaged in an 
arms-length commercial transaction. As a result, any exertion of market 
power in seeking particular terms in an onboarding arrangement will 
raise significant concerns about the permissibility of a denial under 
Sec.  1033.321. In this context, any arrangements not related to the 
effective implementation of this rule and associated risk management 
requirements would need to ensure they do not violate CFPA section 1033 
or the anti-evasion provision of Sec.  1033.201(a)(2).
    Second, the CFPB also would have concerns under Sec.  1033.321 if 
data providers demand arrangements that would effectively relieve them 
of their own obligations to follow the law. Such arrangements may 
indicate the data provider is not motivated by legal compliance, and 
such arrangements are likely not directly related to a specific risk 
presented by the third party. The potential liabilities that commenters 
raised, as a general matter, are provided for under applicable law, 
including existing law on how such liabilities may be allocated. To the 
extent that data providers and third parties are seeking to use 
onboarding arrangements to reduce the transaction costs associated with 
such back-end allocations, thereby lowering the systemic costs of open 
banking, such arrangements are less likely to raise concerns under 
Sec.  1033.321. Permissibility in this context is likely to depend on 
whether

[[Page 90900]]

parties are mutually attempting to reduce transaction costs, or whether 
one party is instead seeking to undo or change the substantive 
allocative outcomes that existing legal regimes would otherwise produce 
for the parties involved, both in terms of where law would put the loss 
initially and where the loss would be allocated under law.
    By the same token, wholesale indemnification or ``hold harmless'' 
terms, which a number of commenters requested be imposed by or given 
safe harbor status under the rule, also will raise significant concerns 
under Sec.  1033.321. To the extent that an indemnity seeks, 
effectively, to recast one party's potential liability as another's, it 
almost inevitably seeks to undo the substantive outcome that existing 
law would otherwise realize.
    Third, the CFPB is particularly skeptical of, and as a result 
intends to carefully scrutinize for reasonableness, data provider 
insistence on onboarding arrangements that would allocate to third 
parties liability for losses associated with unauthorized transactions 
from accounts maintained by that data provider and where that liability 
arises under Regulation E.\76\ Under Regulation E, financial 
institutions have an obligation to protect their customers against 
unauthorized transactions. Private network rules provide a means for 
financial institutions to allocate that liability. Financial 
institutions should continue to manage liability through appropriately 
developed private network rules, not one-off agreements that may 
manifest some improper, unilateral exertion of market power. 
Depositories should not use the final rule's recognition that data 
access onboarding needs to proceed in accordance with risk management 
obligations as grounds to negate the effect of their own Regulation E 
obligations or the need to manage liability through private network 
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ The CFPB has the same view with respect to comments raising 
concerns about the allocation of any liability under Regulation Z.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the CFPB observes that onboarding arrangements that adhere 
to consensus standards will carry indicia of reasonableness under Sec.  
1033.321(b).\77\ For example, their development by recognized standard 
setters means they are likely to be directly related to a specific 
risk, rather than an overbroad product of a data provider's or third 
party's market power. The use of standard form onboarding arrangements 
that have been developed through the kind of processes that recognized 
standard setters maintain can provide an efficient model for data 
providers and third parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ The presence of such onboarding arrangements might also 
suggest that a data provider's policies and procedures are 
``reasonably designed'' under Sec.  1033.321(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding comments about the potential burden on data providers of 
vetting third parties, the CFPB notes that final Sec.  1033.321 does 
not require data providers to vet third parties. Any requirements 
regarding vetting are the result of data providers' existing 
requirements regarding risk management, such as the GLBA Safeguards 
Framework or safety and soundness standards. To be clear, acting on the 
authorization of a consumer to access their personal financial data 
pursuant to this final rule does not, in any way, make a third party a 
service provider to a data provider; and the same holds true for an 
aggregator with respect to its use by that third party. Authorized 
third parties interact with data providers for the limited purpose of 
accessing a consumer's covered data at the consumer's express 
direction, and do so within the final rule's procedural and substantive 
protections regarding the features of the developer interface and the 
collection, use, and retention of that data. This context differs from 
other contexts in which data providers are choosing third party 
business partners or service providers, or are providing data outside 
the safe, secure, and reliable framework that the final rule is 
intended to establish.
    Additionally, the final rule includes various provisions designed 
to reduce the burden of vetting. In particular, final Sec.  1033.321(c) 
allows for conformance with certain consensus standards and 
certifications to serve as indicia bearing on the reasonableness of a 
denial under Sec.  1033.321(b), and final Sec.  1033.321(d) lists 
conditions sufficient to justify a denial without the need for any 
further evaluation by the data provider. With respect to comments 
advocating CFPB supervision of data aggregators and third parties, as 
noted in part IV.5 above the CFPB intends to exercise its supervisory 
authorities in circumstances where that is appropriate. However, the 
CFPB's confidential supervisory process is distinct from any vetting 
that a data provider undertakes for its own risk management purposes.
    The CFPB declines to make certain burden-related changes suggested 
by some commenters. Specifically, final Sec.  1033.321 does not 
prescribe timing requirements applicable to denials. New timing 
standards would not be appropriate because final Sec.  1033.321 is 
intended to work within data providers' existing processes for risk 
management. And the CFPB understands that risk management is an ongoing 
process that is difficult to reduce to a single decision point to which 
a deadline could be attached. Regarding liability, the CFPB declines to 
change the existing frameworks under Regulation E and Regulation Z for 
the reasons described in part IV.5 above. And the CFPB cannot create a 
safe harbor from data providers' existing legal obligations regarding 
risk management because those obligations are implemented and enforced 
by other agencies.
    Regarding comments requesting additional changes designed to reduce 
the risk of improper denials, the CFPB has adopted several new indicia 
of reasonableness in final Sec.  1033.321(c) that will help ensure that 
any denials are justified, as discussed below. These indicia, combined 
with the other requirements of final Sec.  1033.321, will provide an 
appropriate check against improper denials. The CFPB believes that 
certain other suggestions are unnecessary because they are provided for 
elsewhere in the final rule. For example, nothing in the final rule 
prevents third parties, consumer advocates, or consumers from reporting 
denials to the CFPB or other appropriate officials, such as prudential 
regulators or State attorneys general. And as discussed in the analysis 
of final Sec.  1033.351(b)(2), the final rule provides for transparency 
in denials by requiring data providers to adopt policies and procedures 
recording the basis for denial and communicating this basis to third 
parties. For commenters concerned about data providers blocking 
existing methods of data access before making developer interfaces 
available, the CFPB has explained in the discussion of final Sec.  
1033.311(e)(1) that such attempts could constitute unfair, deceptive, 
or abusive acts or practices under the CFPA.
    Finally, the CFPB agrees with commenters that interagency 
coordination is essential to the successful operation of an open 
banking system. Such coordination is especially important here because 
data providers' legal obligations regarding risk management are 
generally implemented and enforced by other agencies such as the 
prudential regulators. Accordingly, the CFPB anticipates that it will 
continue to work closely with other regulators to implement the rule 
and provide additional guidance applicable to the consumer-authorized 
data sharing context.
Requirements for Reasonable Denials (Sec.  1033.321(b))
    Proposed Sec.  1033.321(b) would have provided that any denials 
under

[[Page 90901]]

Sec.  1033.321 would be subject to a reasonableness standard. The 
proposed rule stated that to be reasonable pursuant to Sec.  
1033.321(a), a denial must, at a minimum, be directly related to a 
specific risk of which the data provider is aware, such as a failure of 
a third party to maintain adequate data security, and must be applied 
in a consistent and non-discriminatory manner.
    A few commenters responded to proposed Sec.  1033.321(b)'s 
requirement that a denial must, at a minimum, be directly related to a 
specific risk of which the data provider is aware. A bank and a trade 
association commenter asserted this condition was too narrow because, 
they said, data providers must anticipate potential risks that have yet 
to materialize. However, a data aggregator commenter said that the term 
``specific risk'' might be overbroad if it encompasses concerns like 
reputational risk. A research organization requested more detail on the 
meaning of specific risk.
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing Sec.  
1033.321(b) with certain changes for clarity about the role of this 
provision. Final Sec.  1033.321(b) provides that a denial is reasonable 
pursuant to Sec.  1033.321(a)(2) if it is: (1) directly related to a 
specific risk of which the data provider is aware, such as a failure of 
a third party to maintain adequate data security; and (2) applied in a 
consistent and non-discriminatory manner.
    Final Sec.  1033.321(b) describes these paragraphs as requirements 
for reasonableness rather than minimum conditions because satisfying 
both conditions is sufficient for a denial to be reasonable under this 
provision. Further guidance about the application of these requirements 
is found in the indicia of reasonableness are described in connection 
with Sec.  1033.321(c).
    The CFPB has determined that this approach provides greater clarity 
than the proposed use of the phrase ``at a minimum,'' which could have 
implied the existence of an unknown number of unstated additional 
conditions. The requirements in Sec.  1033.321(b) are designed to 
ensure that data providers are making denial decisions in a principled 
manner. The CFPB has determined that denials made in violation of these 
procedures carry a significant risk of being pretextual or otherwise 
infringing consumers' access rights under CFPA section 1033.
    Final Sec.  1033.321(b)(1) provides that a denial must be directly 
related to a specific risk of which the data provider is aware, such as 
a failure of a third party to maintain adequate data security. This 
requirement is designed to ensure that the concerns motivating a denial 
are appropriately tailored and concrete to justify denying access to a 
third party. The CFPB disagrees with commenters who stated that 
requiring data providers to articulate a specific risk would prevent 
them from addressing risks that have yet to materialize. Final Sec.  
1033.321(b)(1) does not require that a given harm have actually 
occurred before a denial is justified; only that it be articulable with 
specificity and based on circumstances that the data provider is aware 
of.
    The CFPB declines to state that certain safety and soundness risks 
can never be stated with specificity. Final Sec.  1033.321(b)(1) 
provides a procedural limit on denials of access but does not 
substantively restrict the risks that a data provider may articulate. 
However, any denial must also be necessary to avoid being inconsistent 
with policies and procedures reasonably designed to comply with the 
legal requirements described in Sec.  1033.321(a)(1). And final Sec.  
1033.321(c) lists indicia that can assist entities in complying with 
Sec.  1033.321(b). Similarly, in response to concerns that the 
``specific risk'' standard is insufficiently clear, the CFPB notes that 
it is designed to operate alongside the other provisions of this 
section.
    Final Sec.  1033.321(b)(1) provides that a denial must be 
``directly related'' to a specific risk. In general, a denial is 
directly related to a risk if it is appropriately tailored to that 
risk. For example, if a data provider denies access to a third party 
during the onboarding process because it is missing information about 
that third party's information security practices, then it should grant 
access once it receives information that establishes the sufficiency of 
those practices. Under these circumstances, an indefinite denial would 
not be directly related to the risk justifying the denial.
    Final Sec.  1033.321(b)(2) also provides that a denial must be 
applied in a consistent and non-discriminatory manner. This provision 
is intended to ensure that data providers make similar denial decisions 
across third parties that present materially similar risk management 
concerns. As noted in the proposal, the term ``non-discriminatory'' in 
this provision carries its ordinary meaning and is not intended to 
refer to discrimination on a prohibited basis under Federal fair 
lending law.
    Regarding comments recommending that the final rule require denials 
to be based on existing policies and procedures approved by a data 
provider's regulator, the CFPB believes that this comment relates to 
the consistency element of reasonableness. Specifically, denials based 
on previously adopted written policies and procedures may be more 
likely to be genuinely responsive to the risks described in those 
policies and procedures, while denials based on newly announced 
concerns raise heightened risks of being unreasonable under final Sec.  
1033.321(b).
Indicia Bearing on Reasonableness ((Sec.  1033.321(c))
    Proposed Sec.  1033.321(c) provided that indicia that a denial 
pursuant to Sec.  1033.321(a) is reasonable would include whether 
access is denied to adhere to a qualified industry standard related to 
data security or third party risk management. The proposal explained 
that conformance with an industry standard alone would not necessarily 
settle the question of reasonableness.
    Many commenters addressed the role of standard-setting bodies or 
credentialing bodies. Several commenters recommended that the CFPB 
itself develop, or encourage the development of, an accreditation 
process for third parties that entitles them to data access, while 
others supported a registry created by a standard-setting body or by 
the CFPB. However, data providers and data provider trade association 
commenters stated that any credentialing process or consensus standard 
should not be dispositive. These commenters stated that risk management 
is specific to each third party relationship and were concerned that 
industry standards might conflict with the prudential regulators' 
standards. A few commenters stated that no standard-setting body 
currently has plans to issue standards related to risk management or 
data security. A standard-setting body commented that they do not plan 
to pursue authentication and data security specifications, or liability 
determinations.
    Other commenters recommended that the final rule include additional 
factors relevant to a denial of access. One data aggregator commenter 
recommended creating a presumption in favor of access for third parties 
that attest to following appropriate data security standards. This 
commenter also suggested including indicia of unreasonable denials for 
denials made despite a third party certifying to the adequacy of its 
security measures or conforming to an accreditation developed by the 
CFPB or a standard-setting body. A trade association commenter 
recommended that the final

[[Page 90902]]

rule give conclusive weight to similar factors related to unreasonable 
denials, such as certification by the third party, conformance to an 
industry standard, or supervision by a regulatory agency.
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing Sec.  
1033.321(c) with several new indicia bearing on the reasonableness of a 
denial under Sec.  1033.321(b). Final Sec.  1033.321(c) states that 
indicia bearing on the reasonableness of a denial under Sec.  
1033.321(b) include: (1) whether the denial adheres to a consensus 
standard related to risk management; (2) whether the denial proceeds 
from standardized risk management criteria that are available to the 
third party upon request; and (3) whether the third party has a 
certification or other identification of fitness to access covered data 
that is maintained or recognized by a recognized standard setter or the 
CFPB.
    The indicia listed in final Sec.  1033.321(c) include factors that 
the can further guide compliance with Sec.  1033.321(b). The indicia do 
not serve as conclusive evidence or presumptions of compliance because 
the CFPB understands that the circumstances surrounding a denial may 
render it unreasonable or reasonable for purposes of Sec.  1033.321(b) 
despite the presence or absence of these indicia. For example, a third 
party might possess a certification regarding the adequacy of its 
information security program, but a data provider might nevertheless 
reasonably deny access if it discovers deficiencies in that program 
such that providing access would be inconsistent with policies and 
procedures reasonably designed to comply with a legal requirement 
regarding risk management.
    Final Sec.  1033.321(c)(1) largely restates the proposal's indicia 
related to qualified industry standards, with changes to conform to the 
final rule's use of the term ``consensus standard'' and Sec.  
1033.321's use of the term ``risk management'' to capture various legal 
obligations related to safe and sound practices, information security, 
and similar applicable statutory or regulatory obligations. A denial 
made according to a consensus standard may be likely to be reasonable 
because it reflects a consistent set of standards developed with the 
participation of a variety of stakeholders, including data providers 
and third parties. The CFPB believes this provision will promote safe 
and competitive third party access.
    Final Sec.  1033.321(c)(2) relates to whether the denial proceeds 
from standardized criteria regarding risk management available to the 
third party upon request. The CFPB agrees with commenters about the 
value of a standardized risk assessment method. Denials made according 
to standardized, knowable criteria may be likely to be reasonable 
because they are the product of a principled decision-making process. 
At the same time, the CFPB recognizes that in rare cases a data 
provider might face an unanticipated risk that justifies denying 
access. Additionally, there may be aspects of a risk management policy 
that would undermine the policy's effectiveness if disclosed to a third 
party. For that reason, final Sec.  1033.321(c)(2) is among the indicia 
of reasonableness rather than a requirement of reasonableness.
    Final Sec.  1033.321(c)(3) relates to credentials or other 
identifications of fitness to access covered data. The CFPB agrees with 
commenters who stated that a credentialing or registry system could 
serve a useful role in the open banking system. But the CFPB also 
recognizes that such a credential could not supplant data providers' 
risk management obligations. Such credentials would reduce both the 
burden of vetting and the risk of unreasonable denials under Sec.  
1033.321(b). A denial of a credentialed third party may be likely to be 
unreasonable under Sec.  1033.321(b) because, among other things, the 
third party has presented evidence of its fitness to access covered 
data, supported either directly or indirectly by a relevant regulator. 
Conversely, a denial of a noncredentialled third party may be likely to 
be reasonable under Sec.  1033.321(b) if such credential were customary 
among third parties. Final Sec.  1033.321(c)(3) allows for a broad 
range of credentials to serve as indicia, including lists of approved 
third parties, and for a broad range of entities that may produce or 
validate such a credential.
    The CFPB acknowledges comments stating that no consensus standard 
or credentialing entity relevant to denials is likely to exist in the 
immediate future. Regarding comments requesting standards or entities 
directly approved by the CFPB, the CFPB believes that these measures 
would be most effective and efficient if done on a coordinated basis 
with other regulators. Final Sec.  1033.321(c)(3) does not commit the 
CFPB (or other regulators) to recognizing such a credential or 
credentialing entity. But given the interest commenters expressed in 
this type of accreditation, the CFPB believes that developments in this 
direction would promote consistent and non-discriminatory practices 
with respect to managing third party data access. Therefore, final 
Sec.  1033.321(c)(3) accommodates the creation of such standards or 
entities.
    The CFPB believes the indicia provided in final Sec.  1033.321(c) 
incorporate many of the suggestions made by commenters for improving 
the efficiency of third party data access. The CFPB declines to adopt 
all suggested indicia because the final rule prioritizes indicia the 
CFPB believes are likely to be most relevant and impactful to 
evaluating the reasonableness of a data provider's denial under Sec.  
1033.321(b). Final Sec.  1033.321(c) is not an exhaustive list of 
factors that can guide compliance with Sec.  1033.321(b).
Conditions Sufficient To Justify a Denial (Sec.  1033.321(d))
    The CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.321(d)(1) to clarify that a data 
provider would have a reasonable basis for denying access to a third 
party under Sec.  1033.321(a) if the third party does not present 
evidence that its data security practices are adequate to safeguard the 
covered data, provided the denial of access is not otherwise 
unreasonable. The CFPB explained that this provision was intended to 
alleviate the concerns related to the potential burden of vetting on 
smaller data providers because if the third party does not present such 
evidence, the data provider may deny access without vetting the third 
party.
    The CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.321(d)(2) to clarify that a data 
provider would have a reasonable basis for denying a third party access 
if the third party does not make public certain information about 
itself. This information consisted of data that the CFPB believed would 
benefit the efficiency of the open banking system, such as the third 
party's legal name and any assumed name it is using when doing business 
with the consumer, a link to its website, and its LEI. Proposed Sec.  
1033.321(d)(2) would have also permitted the data provider to deny 
access if the information was not made available in both human-readable 
and machine-readable formats, and if the information is not readily 
identifiable to members of the public (meaning the information must be 
at least as available as it would be on a public website).
    The CFPB requested comment on whether to specify the types of 
evidence a third party would need to present about its data security 
practices that would give a data provider a reasonable basis to deny 
access, and what types of evidence might provide such a basis. The CFPB 
also requested comment on whether developing an accreditation system 
could reduce diligence costs for both data providers and third parties 
and increase compliance certainty for

[[Page 90903]]

data providers, and on the steps necessary to develop such a credential 
and how the CFPB or other regulators could support such efforts.
    The CFPB also requested comment on whether it should indicate that 
conformance to a specific standard or a qualified industry standard 
would be relevant indicia for a third party's machine-readability 
compliance; whether it should issue regulations or guidance that would 
make it easier for data providers and other members of the public to 
identify a particular third party's information; whether it should 
provide that a data provider is permitted to deny access if the third 
party does not submit to the CFPB the link to the website on which this 
information is disclosed; and whether data providers should have to 
provide information or notice to the CFPB regarding their procedures 
and decisions to approve or deny third parties for access to their 
developer interfaces.
    Several commenters addressed proposed Sec.  1033.321(d)(1). Several 
commenters, including third parties, research organizations, and 
consumer advocates, commented that the final rule should identify the 
types of evidence that would establish the adequacy of a third party's 
data security practices. Types of evidence suggested by these 
commenters typically included a credential issued by an independent 
entity or an industry standard provided by a standard-setting body. 
These commenters differed on whether such evidence should be 
dispositive. One trade association said that the CFPB should not 
specify the types of evidence that would establish that a third party's 
data security practices are adequate.
    The CFPB also received several comments on proposed Sec.  
1033.321(d)(2). A bank commenter stated that the rule should not 
require a third party to provide a phone number that any outside party 
could use to inquire about security practices because doing so might 
compromise the third party's security. A consumer advocate commenter 
said that any directory should include only approved third parties to 
prevent public confusion. Regarding the LEI, one commenter stated that 
the LEI could be used to identify a third party's legal name, while 
another commenter said that an LEI was useful but not sufficient for 
verifying a third party's identity. A data aggregator commenter 
asserted that because many third parties currently lack LEIs and the 
process for obtaining one was difficult, the final rule should also 
permit third parties to use alternative identifiers such as a tax 
identification number or employer identification number.
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing Sec.  
1033.321(d) with certain organizational and clarifying changes to 
improve the function of this provision in the broader context of Sec.  
1033.321. Final Sec.  1033.321(d)(1) provides that each of the 
following is a sufficient basis for denying access to a third party: 
(1) The third party does not present any evidence that its information 
security practices are adequate to safeguard the covered data; or (2) 
The third party does not make the following information available in 
both human-readable and machine-readable formats, and readily 
identifiable to members of the public, meaning the information must be 
at least as available as it would be on a public website: (i) Its legal 
name and, if applicable, any assumed name it is using while doing 
business with the consumer; (ii) A link to its website; (iii) Its LEI 
that is issued by: (A) A utility endorsed by the LEI Regulatory 
Oversight Committee, or (B) A utility endorsed or otherwise governed by 
the Global LEI Foundation (or any successor thereof) after the Global 
LEI Foundation assumes operational governance of the global LEI system; 
and (iv) Contact information a data provider can use to inquire about 
the third party's information security and compliance practices.
    Final Sec.  1033.321(d) is intended to reduce burden on data 
providers by listing conditions that, if met, justify denying access 
without expending any further resources on vetting a third party. 
Accordingly, final Sec.  1033.321(d)(1) clarifies that a denial is 
justified if a third party does not present ``any'' evidence of the 
adequacy of its information security practices. As proposed, the CFPB 
believes that this provision could have been read to require third 
parties to present a certain type of evidence regarding their 
information security practices that would entitle the third party to 
access consumer data. Understandably, many commenters focused on the 
kinds of evidence that could satisfy such a requirement. Many of these 
commenters discussed credentialling functions and consensus standards, 
and the CFPB has reflected this feedback in finalizing indicia related 
to this evidence in Sec.  1033.321(c)(1) and (3). But the CFPB's intent 
for final Sec.  1033.321(d)(1) is more limited. It is designed as a 
means of streamlining the vetting process by clarifying that data 
providers may deny third parties that failed to clear the minimum bar 
necessary for data providers to evaluate the third party's practices. 
Such evidence might take different forms, including a third party's 
policies and procedures, or audits or reports. But if a third party 
cannot present any evidence that its information security practices are 
adequate, then a data provider may deny access without additional 
investigation.
    Final Sec.  1033.321(d)(2) lists certain information that a third 
party must make available. As explained in the proposal, the CFPB finds 
that this information will aid the efficiency of the open banking 
system by helping data providers authenticate the identities of third 
parties and facilitating any outreach to the third party that may be 
required as part of the data provider's due diligence. The information 
required by final Sec.  1033.321(d)(2) is largely the same as the 
information the CFPB proposed, with a minor change. Specifically, to 
avoid implying that data providers absolutely may not inquire about 
topics other than information security, final Sec.  1033.321(d)(2)(iv) 
describes a third party's contact information as information a data 
provider can use to inquire about the third party's information 
security ``and compliance'' practices. The CFPB disagrees that such 
disclosing such contact information might compromise a third party's 
security. The final rule does not require disclosing any substantive 
information about a third party's information security program.
    The CFPB declines to add alternative identifying information other 
than the LEI, such as tax identification number or employer 
identification number. An LEI allows users to link an entity to its 
corporate family, which improves data providers' ability to identify 
the third party seeking access. Additionally, the CFPB has not found 
that LEIs are unduly burdensome to obtain in its experience 
administering the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and Small Business 
Lending rules, both of which require financial institutions to report 
an LEI.
5. Responding to Requests for Information (Sec.  1033.331)
Responding to Requests--Access by Consumers (Sec.  1033.331(a))
    The CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.331(a) to prescribe the conditions 
that apply when consumers are seeking covered data. Under proposed 
Sec.  1033.331(a), to comply with proposed Sec.  1033.201(a), upon 
request from a consumer, a data provider would be required to make 
available covered data when it receives information sufficient to: (1) 
authenticate the consumer's identity and (2) identify the scope of the 
data

[[Page 90904]]

requested. The CFPB explained that proposed Sec.  1033.331(a) is not a 
requirement to authenticate the consumer's identity and identify the 
scope of the data requested. Rather, proposed Sec.  1033.331(a) 
identifies the point in time that a data provider must respond to the 
request. The CFPB received limited comments on this provision. Several 
commenters asked that the CFPB clarify how data providers may verify 
consumers' identities when consumers access information under the rule.
    For the reasons herein, the CFPB is finalizing Sec.  1033.331(a) as 
proposed with an updated cross-reference. Section 1033.331(a) carries 
out the objective of CFPA section 1033(a) for data providers to make 
covered data available upon request to a consumer by defining what 
information triggers a data provider's obligation to make covered data 
available to a consumer. As noted in the proposal, these conditions 
would be satisfied through procedures in use by most consumer 
interfaces today. With regard to the comments requesting clarification 
on how a data provider may verify a consumer's identity for purposes of 
Sec.  1033.331(a), the CFPB notes that the only requirement in the rule 
related to how a data provider must authenticate a consumer's identity 
is the requirement at Sec.  1033.311(e)(2) with respect to the GLBA 
Safeguards Framework.
Responding to Requests--Access by Third Parties (Sec.  1033.331(b))
Conditions That Apply to Requests From Third Parties (Sec.  
1033.331(b)(1))
Proposal
    Under proposed Sec.  1033.331(b)(1), a data provider would have 
been required under Sec.  1033.201(a) to make available covered data to 
a third party, when it receives certain information described in Sec.  
1033.311(b)(i) through (iv). The CFPB proposed in Sec.  
1033.331(b)(1)(i) that a data provider would need to receive 
information sufficient to authenticate the consumer's identity. The 
CFPB explained that before a data provider grants a third party access 
to covered data today, the consumer is typically redirected from a 
third party's interface to the data provider's interface to 
authenticate the consumer's identity, usually by providing account 
credentials. Where consumers provide their credentials directly to the 
data provider through such an interface, the data provider would 
generally receive information sufficient to authenticate the consumer's 
identity for purposes of proposed Sec.  1033.331(b)(1)(i).
    Under proposed Sec.  1033.331(b)(1)(ii), the data provider would 
need to receive information sufficient to authenticate the third 
party's identity. The CFPB explained that an example of such 
information would include an access token obtained by the third party 
that has been approved to access the data provider's interface. Under 
proposed Sec.  1033.331(b)(1)(iii), a data provider would need to 
receive information sufficient to confirm the third party has followed 
the authorization procedures in proposed Sec.  1033.401. The CFPB 
explained that this step would generally be satisfied where the data 
provider receives a copy of the authorization disclosure the third 
party provided to the consumer and that the consumer has signed.
    Finally, under proposed Sec.  1033.331(b)(1)(iv), a data provider 
would need to receive information sufficient to identify the scope of 
the data requested. The CFPB explained that in certain situations, the 
scope of information requested by an authorized third party might be 
ambiguous. In these situations, under proposed Sec.  
1033.331(b)(1)(iv), a data provider could seek to clarify the scope of 
an authorized third party's request with a consumer. For example, the 
CFPB explained that there might be circumstances in which a data 
provider could seek to clarify whether a consumer intended to consent 
to share information from particular accounts or particular types of 
information not specified in the consumer's third party authorization.
    The CFPB requested comment on the potential for technology to 
evolve such that a data provider could satisfy appropriate data 
security and other risk management standards without receiving a 
consumer's account credentials directly from the consumer. The CFPB 
also requested comment on whether clarifications are needed regarding 
what information would be sufficient to confirm the third party has 
followed the authorization procedures in the context of automated 
requests received through a developer interface. Finally, the CFPB 
requested comment on whether additional clarifications or procedures 
are needed to ensure a data provider does not design its developer 
interface to receive information sufficient to satisfy the conditions 
set forth in proposed Sec.  1033.331(b)(1) but in a way that frustrates 
the ability of authorized third parties to receive timely responses to 
requests for covered data.
Comments
    A consumer advocate commenter supported the proposed conditions in 
Sec.  1033.331(b)(1) for data providers to verify a third party's 
authorization to access consumer data and authenticate the identity of 
third parties before they make available covered data. However, this 
commenter, along with others, seemed to interpret proposed Sec.  
1033.331(b)(1) as setting forth strict requirements, as opposed to 
conditions that define the trigger for when a request must be responded 
to by a data provider, which data provider commenters were concerned 
would be overly burdensome with respect to confirming a third party's 
authorization. This concern was twofold: (1) data providers would not 
have actual knowledge of how the third party received authorization, 
which they suggested could have been gathered through unfair, deceptive 
or abusive third party authorization procedures; and (2) confirming 
that every authorized third party complied with the authorization 
procedures would be resource-intensive. Further, bank commenters that 
interpreted the provision to be an obligation were generally unclear as 
to what was required of them to authenticate the consumer or third 
party or to confirm the third party followed the proposed Sec.  
1033.401 authorization procedures.
    Bank commenters offered a number of suggestions for revisions. Some 
bank commenters recommended that the CFPB modify the regulatory text in 
proposed Sec.  1033.331(b)(1)(iii) to clarify that a data provider has 
the right but not the obligation to ``confirm the third party has 
followed the authorization procedures in Sec.  1033.401.'' One bank 
trade association commenter recommended that the CFPB change the 
``confirm'' language in proposed Sec.  1033.331(b)(1)(iii) to 
``reasonably confirm,'' arguing that this would give data providers 
more discretion to determine whether the third party authorization 
actually represents the ``consumer's express informed consent'' as 
required by proposed Sec.  1033.401(c). At least one bank commenter 
understood proposed Sec.  1033.331(b) as setting forth requirements 
applicable every time a third party requests data from the developer 
interface, even where the consumer had authorized the third party to 
access data multiple times within an extended duration. In such cases, 
one data provider trade association commenter recommended that the CFPB 
distinguish between initial requests in which an authorization is first 
presented to the

[[Page 90905]]

data provider, and subsequent requests that were authorized under the 
initial request. The commenter stated that this would give data 
providers more flexibility with respect to reviewing subsequent 
requests. Specifically, the commenter suggested that data requests by 
authorized third parties relying on an existing, unchanged 
authorization should not require additional authentication by the data 
provider.
    Third party commenters were generally concerned that data providers 
could unduly delay the processing of requests to promote the data 
provider's own product or service. One third party commenter suggested 
the final rule state that a data provider should provide a prompt 
response to legitimate requests by third parties. This commenter 
explained that some data providers have purposefully frustrated request 
procedures by ignoring requests to discuss API access or by 
misconstruing their direct data connection.
Final Rule
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing Sec.  
1033.331(b)(1) with a minor change for clarity and an updated cross-
reference. Section 1033.331(b)(1) carries out the objective of CFPA 
section 1033(a) for data providers to make covered data available upon 
request to a consumer by defining what information triggers a data 
provider's obligation to make covered data available to a third party 
purporting to be authorized to act on behalf of a consumer. Under Sec.  
1033.331(b)(1), to comply with the requirements in Sec.  
1033.201(a)(1), upon request from an authorized third party, a data 
provider must make available covered data when it receives certain 
information. This information consists of: information sufficient to 
authenticate the consumer's identity under Sec.  1033.331(b)(1)(i); 
information sufficient to authenticate the third party's identity under 
Sec.  1033.331(b)(1)(ii); information sufficient to document the third 
party has followed the Sec.  1033.401 authorization procedures under 
Sec.  1033.331(b)(1)(iii); and information sufficient to identify the 
scope of the data requested under Sec.  1033.331(b)(1)(iv).
    Consistent with the proposal, Sec.  1033.331(b)(1) does not impose 
obligations on data providers to obtain certain information prior to 
responding to a request for covered data. Rather, Sec.  1033.331(b)(1) 
sets forth the trigger for when a data provider is obligated to make 
covered data available to an authorized third party pursuant to the 
rule. Section 1033.331(b)(1) does not by its terms require a data 
provider to authenticate consumers or third parties, or confirm 
authorizations of third parties. However, the CFPB expects data 
providers generally will do so to ensure they are responding to 
consumers' requests and to comply with the GLBA Safeguards Framework 
(consistent with Sec.  1033.311(e)(2)), any safety and soundness 
requirements, and other legal obligations, such as the CFPA prohibition 
against unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, as applicable. 
In particular, the CFPB does not believe Sec.  1033.331(b)(1)(iii) 
imposes significant burden with respect to how a data provider 
processes information about a third party's compliance with the rule's 
authorization procedures. The CFPB has determined that data providers 
should not be responsible for obtaining a consumer's authorization for 
a third party because third parties are in the best position to 
determine what data elements are reasonably necessary. However, Sec.  
1033.331(b)(1)(iii) does not require a data provider to independently 
verify the third party has followed each of the Sec.  1033.401 
authorization procedures, but instead describes a condition in which 
the data provider receives information sufficient to document such 
authorization. As discussed in the proposal, receipt of a copy of the 
signed authorization disclosure should constitute information 
sufficient to confirm third party authorization, absent facts to the 
contrary. However, in light of comments, the CFPB appreciates that the 
use of ``confirm'' in proposed Sec.  1033.331(b)(1)(iii) could suggest 
a rigorous due diligence obligation. Accordingly, the final rule uses 
``document'' rather than ``confirm'' to clarify the nature of Sec.  
1033.331(b)(1)(iii).
    In response to bank commenter questions about whether any 
particular method of authentication is necessary or sufficient, the 
final rule does not so specify. The final rule only requires data 
providers to satisfy the data security requirements in Sec.  
1033.311(e) regarding the use of consumer credentials and compliance 
with the Safeguards Framework. The CFPB believes the Safeguards 
Framework is sufficiently clear that data providers must take some 
reasonable steps to authenticate who is accessing the data, and the 
CFPB does not believe it is necessary to prescribe a single means of 
authentication in the final rule. The final rule does not preclude a 
data provider from applying different treatment to initial and 
subsequent data requests covered by the same authorization, if 
otherwise permissible under Sec.  1033.311(e). The CFPB notes that 
standard-setting bodies have created standards in this space and 
consensus standards could be useful to demonstrating whether a trigger 
has been met. Accordingly, indicia that bear on whether a trigger in 
Sec.  1033.331(b) has been met include conformance to a consensus 
standard.
    Third party commenters affirmed the concern identified by the CFPB 
in its request for comment that a data provider could frustrate the 
ability of authorized third parties to receive timely responses to 
requests. As discussed in detail above, final Sec.  1033.201(a)(2) 
includes an anti-evasion provision limiting data providers' ability to 
frustrate an authorized third party's receipt of covered data. To 
illustrate how Sec.  1033.201(a)(2) applies to Sec.  1033.331(b), the 
rule includes an example of conduct that violates the anti-evasion 
provision in the context of requests, as discussed below with respect 
to Sec.  1033.331(b)(2) below. The CFPB has determined the anti-evasion 
provision can more flexibly address the variety of conduct that could 
interfere with requests than more detailed procedural requirements.
    A third party's authorization could extend to multiple requests, 
depending on the duration and frequency of access authorized by the 
consumer. As noted in the proposal, data providers today often issue 
third parties accessing their systems a token that can be presented for 
subsequent requests covered by a single authorization. If the data 
provider adequately designs its developer interface, review of the 
initial request by the third party should give the data provider 
adequate opportunity to obtain evidence of the third party's 
authorization including, if appropriate, confirmation by the consumer. 
In general, it should not be necessary to keep confirming the third 
party's authorization with the consumer in connection with each 
previously authorized request. If a data provider continues to request 
this information, then the data provider will raise concerns about 
interfering with the access right, in violation of the anti-evasion 
provision in Sec.  1033.201(a)(2).
Confirmation of Third Party Authorization (Sec.  1033.331(b)(2))
    The CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.331(b)(2) that a data provider 
would be permitted to confirm the scope of a third party's 
authorization to access the consumer's data by asking the consumer to 
confirm (1) the account(s) to which the third party is seeking access 
and (2) the categories of covered data the third party is requesting to

[[Page 90906]]

access, as disclosed by the third party pursuant to proposed Sec.  
1033.411(b)(4). The proposed rule explained that data providers might 
need to confirm the account(s) to which the third party is seeking 
access because that information might not be clear from the 
authorization disclosure, such as where a consumer has multiple 
accounts. Additionally, the proposed rule explained that permitting the 
data provider to confirm the categories of covered data would give the 
consumer an opportunity to review what data they would be authorizing 
and give data providers greater certainty that the consumer has 
authorized the request. The proposed rule requested comment on whether 
the final rule should instead permit data providers to confirm Sec.  
1033.331(b)(2) information with the consumer only where reasonably 
necessary.
    In general, bank commenters supported proposed Sec.  
1033.331(b)(2). One consumer advocate commenter said the CFPB should 
require, rather than permit, the data provider to send a confirmation 
to the consumer when it receives a third party request. Third party 
commenters opposed proposed Sec.  1033.331(b)(2) on the grounds that it 
would cause undue friction in the data access process and suggested 
certain revisions. For example, one third party commenter recommended 
that data providers not be allowed to confirm an authorization if the 
third party transmits a record of the consumer's account selection. 
Another commenter noted that the proposal did not set forth a 
requirement for how or how quickly the data provider confirm third 
party authorization, and noted that an anticompetitive data provider 
could decide to confirm each request via certified mail. Additionally, 
some third party commenters recommended that the CFPB revise proposed 
Sec.  1033.331(b)(2) to require data providers to collect account 
confirmation via the developer interface and not from the consumer.
    The CFPB is finalizing Sec.  1033.331(b)(2) as proposed and has 
added an example to address concerns raised by commenters about 
interference by data providers, as discussed below. Section 
1033.331(b)(2) carries out the objective of CFPA section 1033(a) by 
clarifying that data provider is permitted to take certain steps to 
confirm the scope of information requested by a third party purporting 
to be authorized to act on behalf of a consumer. Allowing data 
providers to confirm authorizations directly with the consumer, as 
described in Sec.  1033.331(b)(2)(i) and (ii), can reduce the risk of 
unintended or fraudulent authorizations and may be a necessary part of 
data providers' risk management program. However, requiring data 
providers to obtain consumer confirmation in every case could impose an 
undue burden on the data provider and the access right, especially in 
light of the protections in Sec.  1033.311(e)(2) and data providers' 
other applicable legal obligations. In response to third party 
commenters' suggestions for alternative procedures to obviate the need 
for data providers to confirm authorization, it is not clear that it 
would be feasible to require data providers to transmit records of 
consumers' accounts to third parties before a third party has initially 
requested access to covered data.
    While data providers are permitted to confirm authorizations with 
consumers pursuant to Sec.  1033.331(b)(2)(i) and (ii), data providers 
must avoid interfering with the statutory access right pursuant to 
Sec.  1033.201(a)(2). As discussed above with respect to Sec.  
1033.331(b)(1), a data provider will create risks of violating the 
anti-evasion provision at Sec.  1033.201(a)(2) if it seeks 
reconfirmation with consumers after it has already documented the third 
party's authorization to access covered data. In response to commenter 
concerns about undue friction introduce by data providers, the final 
rule includes an example that illustrates how a data provider would 
violate Sec.  1033.201(a)(2) if a data provider knows or should know 
its confirmation procedures would be likely to prevent, interfere with, 
or materially discourage access to covered data.
Covered Data Not Required To Be Made Available (Sec.  1033.331(c))
    Proposed Sec.  1033.331(c) stated that, notwithstanding Sec.  
1033.331(a) and (b) (i.e., the general triggers for making covered data 
available in response to consumer or third party requests), a data 
provider is not required to make covered data available in response to 
a request in four circumstances: if the data are withheld because an 
exception described in Sec.  1033.221 applies (Sec.  1033.331(c)(1)); 
if the data provider has a basis to deny access pursuant to risk 
management concerns in accordance with Sec.  1033.321(a) (Sec.  
1033.331(c)(2)); if its interface is not available when the data 
provider receives a request, although the performance specifications at 
Sec.  1033.311 would still apply (Sec.  1033.331(c)(3)); or if the 
request is for access by a third party but the consumer's authorization 
is not valid for one of three reasons: (1) the consumer has revoked the 
third party's authorization pursuant to proposed Sec.  1033.331(e); (2) 
the data provider has received notice that the consumer has revoked the 
third party's authorization pursuant to proposed Sec.  1033.421(h)(2); 
or (3) the consumer has not provided a new authorization to the third 
party after the maximum duration period, as described in proposed Sec.  
1033.421(b)(2) (Sec.  1033.331(c)(4)). The CFPB requested comment on 
whether additional clarification was needed to reduce the opportunity 
for data providers to deny requests without justification under the 
proposed provision.
    One consumer advocate suggested limiting the scope of Sec.  
1033.331(c)(1) by narrowing the scope of the exceptions under Sec.  
1033.221(a) and (d), discussed above in part IV.B.4. The commenter 
asserted fewer exceptions to the requirement that data providers make 
information available make it more transparent to consumers how data 
providers use their data. Several data provider commenters recommended 
that final Sec.  1033.331(c) clarify that failure to meet the 
conditions in Sec.  1033.331(a) and (b) does not require a data 
provider to make covered data available in response to a request. 
Further, some bank commenters suggested that small data providers would 
be overburdened by what they interpreted as a requirement under 
proposed Sec.  1033.331(c) to track all individual authorization and 
access requests.
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing Sec.  
1033.331(c) with certain revisions. Final Sec.  1033.331(c) lists five 
circumstances under which a data provider is not required to make 
covered data available in response to a request. The final rule adopts 
Sec.  1033.331(c)(1), (3), and (4) as proposed. As discussed below, 
final Sec.  1033.331(c)(2) now lists the circumstance in which data are 
not in the data provider's control or possession, consistent with the 
requirement in Sec.  1033.201(a)(1). Also as discussed below, the final 
rule also includes new Sec.  1033.331(c)(5), which describes the 
circumstance in which the data provider has not received information 
sufficient to satisfy the conditions in Sec.  1033.331(a) or (b), with 
conforming changes to the first sentence of Sec.  1033.331(c). The 
final rule also revises the heading to paragraph Sec.  1033.331(c), 
from ``Response not required,'' to ``Covered data not required to be 
made available.'' The final language more accurately reflects the 
operation of the rule because certain responses are required even if 
covered data are not available, pursuant to policies and procedures 
required under

[[Page 90907]]

Sec.  1033.351(b). Section 1033.331(c) carries out the objective of 
CFPA section 1033(a) for data providers to make covered data available 
``upon request'' by clarifying when a data provider is not required to 
make data available in response to a request.
    Proposed Sec.  1033.331(c)(2) would have stated that a data 
provider is not required to respond to a request when the data provider 
has a basis to deny access pursuant to risk management concerns in 
accordance with proposed Sec.  1033.321(a). As discussed in the 
proposal, proposed Sec.  1033.321 was intended to apply to a consumer's 
or third party's access to the interface as a whole, rather than access 
to specific data fields requested. In terms of the operation of Sec.  
1033.331, where a third party that previously had been granted access 
to an interface is subsequently denied access pursuant to Sec.  
1033.321, the data provider would be denying the request because it 
could not authenticate the third party's identity pursuant to Sec.  
1033.331(b)(1)(ii). Consistent with the purpose of the clarification in 
final Sec.  1033.321(a) that data providers can deny a consumer or a 
third party access to ``all elements'' of the interface, the CFPB is 
revising final Sec.  1033.331(c) to treat a denial by operation of 
Sec.  1033.321 as a failure to authenticate under Sec.  1033.331(a) or 
(b). For these reasons, the CFPB is not adopting Sec.  1033.331(c)(2) 
as proposed. This change does not alter the operation of Sec.  1033.321 
that was intended by the proposal. In place of the text in proposed 
Sec.  1033.331(c)(2) regarding Sec.  1033.321, the final rule includes 
new Sec.  1033.331(c)(2) to specify a circumstance that had not been 
identified in the proposal but that nonetheless would justify a denial 
of information requested: when the data are not in the data provider's 
control or possession, consistent with the general requirement in Sec.  
1033.201(a)(1). This change is intended to clarify the operation of the 
rule as a whole, rather than identify a new basis that a data provider 
could deny a request.
    Additionally, the final rule includes new Sec.  1033.331(c)(5) in 
response to comments requesting clarification that Sec.  1033.331(a) 
and (b) do not require a data provider to make covered data available 
in response to a request. The CFPB agrees with commenters that this 
addition would facilitate compliance by clarifying the operation of the 
rule. The general conditions that trigger a data provider's obligation 
to make covered data available are set forth in Sec.  1033.331(a) with 
respect to consumer requests and Sec.  1033.331(b) with respect to 
third party requests. A data provider would not be required to make 
information available if those conditions were not met. The proposed 
rule did not list those explicitly as bases under Sec.  1033.331(c), 
but generally explained that a data provider would not be required to 
make covered data available in response to a request as set forth in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) ``[n]otwithstanding the general rules in 
Sec.  1033.331(a) and (b).'' The CFPB believes that identifying these 
bases more directly will better facilitate compliance with the rule, 
including with respect to Sec.  1033.351(b)(3), discussed below in part 
IV.C.7. Thus, final Sec.  1033.331(c) no longer includes the 
introductory clause, ``[n]otwithstanding the general rules in 
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.''
    Responses to comments regarding the exceptions in Sec.  1033.221 
are discussed in part IV.B.4. Regarding commenters' concern that small 
data providers would be overburdened by what they interpreted as a 
requirement under proposed Sec.  1033.331(c) to track all 
authorizations and data access requests of their customers, Sec.  
1033.331(c) does not require recordkeeping. With respect to concerns 
regarding the burden of policies and procedures requirements in Sec.  
1033.351(b) and (d) regarding responses to denials and record 
retention, the CFPB believes these requirements will not overburden 
data provider, as discussed more fully below in part IV.C.7 below. 
Additionally, as discussed in part IV.A.4, the final rule does not 
cover small depository institution data providers.
Jointly Held Accounts (Sec.  1033.331(d))
    CFPA section 1033(a) generally requires data providers to make 
available ``to a consumer, upon request, information in the control or 
possession of the covered person concerning the consumer financial 
product or service that the consumer obtained.'' The statute does not 
directly address how this obligation applies with respect to jointly 
held accounts. The CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.331(d) to require a data 
provider that receives a request for covered data from a consumer that 
jointly holds an account or from an authorized third party acting on 
behalf of such a consumer to make available covered data to that 
consumer or authorized third party, subject to the other requirements 
of Sec.  1033.331. The CFPB noted that this provision would not affect 
data providers' existing obligations to provide information directly to 
consumers under other Federal consumer financial laws, such as EFTA, 
TISA, and TILA, and their implementing regulations. Those regulations 
generally permit data providers to satisfy the relevant information 
disclosure requirements by providing the information to any one of the 
consumers on the account.\78\ The CFPB requested comment on whether 
other account holders should receive authorization disclosures or 
otherwise be notified, or should have an opportunity to object, when an 
account holder authorizes access to consumer information. The CFPB also 
requested comment on whether the rule should specifically address 
whether authorized users of credit cards should have similar access, 
even if they are not a joint holder of the credit card account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ See 12 CFR 1005.4(c), 1030.3(d), 1026.5(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A nondepository commenter requested that the CFPB clarify that 
authorization from a single account holder is sufficient and that there 
is no requirement to notify other account holders. The commenter stated 
that this approach is consistent with other activity by an account 
holder, such as writing a check or accessing the account through a 
consumer interface, and that providing other account holders with 
notice and an opportunity to object would create legal questions and 
consumer friction for data access. A trade association for 
nondepository entities recommended that other account holders not be 
required to approve when an account holder authorizes access but that 
they should be notified and receive authorization disclosures. Another 
trade association for nondepository entities stated that the rule 
should require all account holders to provide authorization for access 
to covered data. The commenter stated that if the rule does not require 
authorization from all account holders, the other account holders 
should be notified and have an opportunity to object and prevent the 
authorization. A consumer advocate commenter stated that other account 
holders should not have the right to object but that they should 
receive notice unless the consumer authorizing access actively 
indicates that such notice would be harmful because it poses a risk to 
their safety.
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is adopting Sec.  
1033.331(d) as proposed with one minor change. As finalized, Sec.  
1033.331(d) provides that a data provider that receives a request for 
covered data from a consumer that jointly holds an account or from an 
authorized third party acting on behalf of such a consumer must make 
available covered data to that consumer or authorized third party, 
subject to the other provisions of Sec.  1033.331. The final rule 
changes ``requirements'' to

[[Page 90908]]

``provisions'' in the last phrase in Sec.  1033.331(d) because the 
other parts of the rule that identify circumstances in which a data 
provider may not be obligated to make available covered data are more 
accurately described as ``provisions'' than ``requirements.'' Section 
1033.331(d) carries out the objectives of CFPA section 1033(a) by 
clarifying whether a data provider must make available covered data in 
response to a request by one consumer with respect to covered data 
concerning a jointly held account.
    Allowing a single account holder to request covered data or to 
authorize a third party to access covered data on behalf of the account 
holders is consistent with the broad authority that joint account 
owners have over the account. Given that broad authority, the CFPB 
concludes it would be unnecessarily burdensome at this time to require 
that other account holders approve in advance a request for covered 
data or authorize a third party to access covered data on behalf of a 
joint account holder. Likewise, the data provider or authorized third 
party is not required to provide notice or a copy of the authorization 
disclosure to other account holders. While a notice or authorization 
disclosure would inform the other account holders that account 
information is being accessed, the benefits of such a disclosure or 
notice are unclear and would depend on the circumstances, including the 
terms of the account and the relationship of the account holders. Each 
joint account holder already has significant authority over the 
account, including the ability to provide account information or expend 
funds. Moreover, when a joint account holder authorizes a third party 
to access covered data, the consumer protections in Sec.  1033.421, 
including the limitations on collection, retention and use by 
authorized third parties, impose boundaries on the data that can be 
accessed by third parties and how that data can be used. Accordingly, 
the data provider is not required to provide a notice or copy of the 
disclosure to all joint account holders, though nothing in the rule 
prohibits data providers from doing so if they see fit.
Data Provider Revocation (Sec.  1033.331(e))
Proposed Rule
    The CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.331(e) to permit a data provider to 
make available to the consumer a reasonable method by which the 
consumer could revoke any third party's authorization to access all of 
the consumer's covered data. Under the proposed rule, to be reasonable, 
the revocation method would need to be, at a minimum, unlikely to 
interfere with, prevent, or materially discourage consumers' access to 
or use of the data, including access to and use of the data by an 
authorized third party. Indicia that the data provider's revocation 
method was reasonable would include its conformance to a qualified 
industry standard. Finally, under the proposed rule, a data provider 
that received a revocation request from consumers through a revocation 
method would be required to notify the authorized third party of the 
request.
    The proposal stated that this provision, along with the proposed 
third party revocation requirements in Sec.  1033.421(h), were intended 
to ensure consumers would have multiple outlets through which they 
could revoke third party authorization to access covered data. But the 
CFPB preliminarily determined that requiring data providers to make a 
revocation method available might burden smaller entities. The proposed 
rule also noted that stakeholders had expressed concerns during SBREFA 
about anticompetitive behaviors from data providers. Accordingly, the 
proposed rule would not have permitted data providers to make available 
a method through which the consumer could partially revoke a third 
party's access to covered data, as this would be inconsistent with 
proposed Sec.  1033.201(a), requiring data providers to make covered 
data available upon request based on the terms of the consumer's 
authorization. The proposed rule stated that partial revocations could 
result in consumers losing utility of data access for certain use 
cases. To further account for anticompetitive concerns, proposed Sec.  
1033.331(e) included a list of non-exhaustive requirements to ensure 
the optional revocation method would be reasonable, which were drawn 
from the definition of ``information blocking'' in section 3022(a) of 
the Public Health Service Act. The proposed rule stated that this 
language would promote consumers' ability to access and share their 
data by ensuring data providers do not impose obstacles that 
effectively evade their obligations to make available covered data 
under CFPA section 1033. Regarding the proposed notification 
requirement, the proposed rule explained that a third party whose 
authorization to access data is revoked by a consumer would need to 
understand that the consumer has chosen to end their authorization, and 
that the data provider did not terminate the access for another reason.
Comments Received
    The concept of revocation, including permitting data providers to 
provide consumers with a revocation method, received general support 
from commenters, with many agreeing that consumers benefit 
significantly from multiple opportunities to revoke third party 
authorizations. Some commenters, including a consumer advocate, a trade 
association for banks, and a third party commenter, stated that the 
CFPB should require, rather than permit, revocation through a data 
provider. A trade association for data providers stated that requiring 
revocation through data providers would not be a burden for smaller 
entities because core processors can supply interfaces that include 
revocation methods.
    Some banks and consumer advocates expressed concerns about 
qualified industry standards related to revocation, stating that 
qualified industry standards are inappropriate for revocation and could 
conflict with federally supervised entities' regulatory obligations. 
Additionally, some data provider, third party, and data aggregator 
commenters expressed concern about the proposed notification 
requirement, and suggested the following changes: require notification 
in as close to real-time as possible; require data providers to provide 
24-hour notice to the third party before terminating access in case of 
pending transactions or fraud attempts; require consumers to notify all 
parties of their revocation and free data providers from possible 
liability that results from revocation; and ensure data providers do 
not have to furnish notification to any third party but the authorized 
third party. Third party commenters suggested that without more 
guardrails around the notification requirement, or around data 
providers' ability to solicit revocations from consumers, the rule 
would not adequately account for the potential for anticompetitive 
activities from data providers. In contrast, a trade association for 
banks requested that the CFPB make clear that a reasonable revocation 
method would allow the data provider to provide clear disclosures about 
data access to their customers.
    Commenters also provided feedback on whether the permitted 
revocation method should allow partial revocations. Some data providers 
and data provider trade associations stated that the final rule should 
allow for partial revocations through the data provider for the 
consumer's added control. They also stated that the proposed rule 
overstated concerns about consumers not realizing the impacts of 
revocation on data access, commenting

[[Page 90909]]

that consumers making post-authorization decisions to revoke reflect 
intention to control and terminate third party authorizations. Other 
data provider and credit union trade association commenters stated that 
partial revocation is costly and burdensome and could result in unfair 
competition.
    A trade association for third parties and other stakeholders raised 
concerns about consumer revocation through the data provider in 
relation to TANs. Several third parties stated that consumer revocation 
could result in the consumer, intentionally or unintentionally, causing 
the data provider to revoke the consumer's TAN after the consumer 
obtains the third party product or service but before the payment 
settles. Commenters suggested that the proposed rule's strict all-or-
nothing revocation method for data providers could contribute to the 
unintended consequence of third party payment failure when a consumer 
had authorized a third party to access a TAN and other covered data.
    Finally, commenters suggested that the CFPB: clarify that data 
providers must recognize revocation requests in joint accounts if one 
account holder makes the request; clarify the ``all or nothing'' 
requirement and how revocation works for joint account holders; clarify 
what constitutes a ``reasonable method'' and provide examples of when 
revocation mechanisms are likely to interfere with, prevent, or 
materially discourage consumers and how deceptive design might manifest 
in revocation mechanisms.
Final Rule
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing Sec.  
1033.331(e) with certain changes and one technical correction described 
below, to provide that a data provider does not violate the general 
obligation in Sec.  1033.201(a)(1) by making available to the consumer 
a reasonable method to revoke any third party's authorization to access 
all of the consumer's data, provided that such method does not violate 
Sec.  1033.201(a)(2). Indicia that the data provider's revocation 
method is reasonable include its conformance to a consensus standard. A 
data provider that receives a revocation request from a consumer 
through a revocation method it makes available must revoke the 
authorized third party's access and notify the authorized third party 
of the request in a timely manner. Section 1033.331(e) carries out the 
objectives of CFPA section 1033(a) by clarifying that a data provider 
is permitted to establish certain procedures allowing a consumer to 
communicate efficiently and directly with the data provider when a 
third party is no longer authorized to act on the consumer's behalf to 
access covered data.
    While consumers benefit from multiple methods of revoking third 
party authorization to access covered data, the CFPB has determined 
that requiring data providers to make available a revocation method 
would not be necessary and could be burdensome for some data providers. 
The CFPB expects that consumers seeking to revoke access to a requested 
product or service are most likely to do so from the third party with 
whom they have the ongoing customer relationship. As discussed above, 
while one commenter stated that requiring revocation through data 
providers would not be burdensome because entities could request core 
processors to include a method as part of their consumer interfaces, 
other commenters raised concerns about the burdens associated with 
maintaining an optional revocation method that adheres to the rule's 
requirements. Though providing a revocation method itself could be 
relatively straightforward, the CFPB acknowledges commenters' concerns 
that ongoing costs associated with maintaining it could be burdensome. 
As such, the final rule permits, but does not require, data providers 
to provide a revocation method to consumers.
    The proposed rule stated that, to be reasonable, the revocation 
method would, at a minimum, need to be unlikely to interfere with, 
prevent, or materially discourage consumers' access to or use of the 
data, including access to and use of the data by an authorized third 
party. This language was intended to ensure data providers offering an 
optional revocation method did not impose obstacles that evade their 
obligations to make available covered data under CFPA section 1033. The 
final rule instead states that data providers do not violate their 
general obligation in the rule by making available to the consumer a 
reasonable method to revoke any third party's authorization to access 
all of the consumer's covered data, provided that such method does not 
violate Sec.  1033.201(a)(2). This change is meant to ensure that any 
revocation method a data provider offers to consumers adheres to the 
prohibition against evasion, which applies to all other data provider 
activities, and is meant to achieve the same effect behind the proposed 
rule's language: data providers must not violate their general 
obligation to make available covered data through the offering of the 
optional revocation method. Potential examples of actions that might 
violate the prohibition against evasion in providing an optional method 
for consumers to revoke third party authorizations are intentionally 
soliciting consumers to revoke authorizations based on misleading 
statements about the third parties' collection, use, or retention of 
covered data, or providing granular revocations or disabling a TAN 
without the consumer's consent, discussed further below.
    As discussed above, some commenters were concerned that consensus 
standards could be inappropriate for revocation and could conflict with 
federally supervised entities' regulatory obligations. The CFPB notes 
that consensus standards are indicia of compliance, not mandatory for 
compliance, and the revocation method itself is optional. Without 
suggesting that any such conflict exists, the CFPB is accordingly 
confident that data providers can avoid any hypothesized conflict with 
other obligations.
    The CFPB remains concerned that data providers are likely to have 
commercial interests contrary to those of authorized third parties 
offering competing products or services. As such, the final rule 
requires data providers that provide consumers a revocation method to 
make available a method through which the consumer can revoke access to 
all of the consumer's covered data, adhere to the final rule's anti-
evasion provision in Sec.  1033.201(a)(2) and notify the authorized 
third party of the request in a timely manner. This language will 
ensure that any revocation method provided to consumers is provided in 
accordance with the anti-evasion provision in Sec.  1033.201(a)(2).
    While some commenters argued that data providers should be allowed 
to provide consumers the option to request partial revocations through 
the data provider, the final rule only allows for all-or-nothing 
revocations. Commenters did not describe in detail data providers' view 
into the functionality of products or services, and therefore it 
remains unclear how a data provider could effectively determine how to 
provide partial revocations that do not result in harms to consumers or 
authorized third parties as they continue to access covered data for 
products and services for which the authorization is intended to remain 
in place. As discussed above regarding data providers responding to 
requests under Sec.  1033.331(b)(1), some data provider commenters 
expressed concern that data providers were not positioned

[[Page 90910]]

to have actual knowledge of third parties' receipt of authorization 
from consumers. The CFPB has determined that, just as data providers 
are not in the best position to manage third party authorizations, data 
providers are likewise not in the best position to allow consumers to 
seek partial revocations, a consequence of which would be termination 
of third parties' access to potentially reasonably necessary data 
elements. Further, data providers' incentives to provide partial 
revocations are unclear, and may not be aligned with consumers' 
incentives to control the authorizations they provide to third parties 
in order to receive products or services. As discussed above regarding 
data providers responding to requests under Sec.  1033.331(b)(1), data 
providers may have strong incentives to limit the scope of data 
available to third parties, especially those providing a competing 
product or service. These potentially competing incentives may result 
in competition harms or consumer harms if data providers are permitted 
to provide consumers with the ability to only partially revoke third 
party authorizations to access covered data.
    Additionally, as described above, some commenters suggested that 
the proposal's all-or-nothing revocation method for data providers 
could contribute to the unintended consequence of third party payment 
failure when a consumer had authorized a third party to access a TAN 
and other covered data and the consumer subsequently requests 
revocation of that information. Commenters expressed concern that a 
consumer's revocation of TAN information would also result in a data 
provider disabling a TAN's functionality. However, there are multiple 
reasons a consumer might revoke a third party's access to TAN 
information. A consumer may revoke access to the TAN information 
because they do in fact want to stop a third party's ability to 
initiate payments--therefore, the revocation would be intended for both 
the information and the functionality. Sometimes the consumer may just 
intend to revoke the third party's ability to access information, but 
intend for the TAN to remain functional. To avoid violating the anti-
evasion provision in Sec.  1033.201(a)(2), data providers must be aware 
that disabling a TAN without the consumer's consent might render 
unusable the covered data that the data provider makes available or 
prevent, interfere with, or materially discourage a consumer in 
accessing covered data. Whether revocation of TAN information or TAN 
functionality following a consumer's revocation request is a material 
interference with the third party's access to covered data will depend 
on the facts. However, general awareness of the possibility of 
unintended consequences of revocation, without more, will not be enough 
to violate this standard.
    Further, the CFPB agrees with commenters that Sec.  1033.331(e) 
should specify that revocation must occur in a timely manner and thus 
has included language to that effect in the final rule. Failure to 
timely revoke data access is likely to interfere with a consumer's 
express desire to revoke a third party's authority to access covered 
data. Similarly, failure to notify third parties of consumers' 
revocation requests in a timely manner could result in the third party 
continuing to seek access to covered data and receiving denials to 
those requests. As such, to ensure revocation is timely following a 
revocation request, and that notification is provided to the authorized 
third party in a timely manner, the final rule requires that: (1) the 
third party's access to the data must be revoked in a timely manner; 
and (2) a data provider that receives a revocation request from a 
consumer through a revocation method it makes available must notify the 
authorized third party of the request in a timely manner. While 
commenters suggested other specific changes to the notification 
requirements, described above, the CFPB has determined that additional 
changes are unnecessary.
    Finally, a data provider commenter and trade associations for banks 
asked that the final rule provide information about how revocation 
works for joint account holders. As discussed related to Sec.  
1033.331(d), a consumer that jointly holds an account may request 
access to covered data or may authorize third party access to covered 
data. Likewise, the revocation method described in Sec.  1033.331(e) 
pertains to a consumer that jointly holds an account. Any consumer that 
jointly holds an account may revoke third party authorization to access 
covered data related to that account, if provided for under the terms 
of the account. The CFPB has made a technical correction to the last 
sentence in proposed Sec.  1033.331(e) to refer to revocation requests 
received from ``a consumer,'' instead of the plural ``consumers,'' 
which could have otherwise implied both joint account holders always 
need to provide the revocation request.
6. Public Disclosure Requirements (Sec.  1033.341)
Public Disclosure and Human- and Machine-Readability Requirements 
(Sec.  1033.341(a))
    Proposed Sec.  1033.341(a) would have required data providers to 
make the information described in proposed Sec.  1033.341(b) through 
(d)--which address identifying information about the data provider, 
developer interface documentation, and performance specification--
readily identifiable to members of the public. Proposed Sec.  
1033.341(a)(1) defined this to mean that the information must be at 
least as available as it would be on a public website. Under proposed 
Sec.  1033.341(a)(2), the information would have been required to be 
available in both human- and machine-readable formats. The CFPB 
preliminarily determined that making the data available in a machine-
readable format could enable third parties and other stakeholders to 
use automated processes to ingest the relevant information into their 
systems for processing and review, which will make the process of 
obtaining this information more efficient. The CFPB requested comment 
on whether it should indicate that conformance to a specific standard 
or a qualified industry standard would be relevant indicia for a data 
provider's compliance with the machine-readability requirement in 
proposed Sec.  1033.341(a)(2). Additionally, the CFPB requested comment 
on whether it should issue rules or guidance that would make it easier 
for third parties and other members of the public to identify a 
particular data provider's information.
    Commenters generally supported the requirement to make information 
about the data provider readily identifiable. Some commenters 
recommended the rule go further regarding public disclosure 
requirements. One bank commenter recommended that the rule allow for 
multiple data providers to publish their required disclosures in one 
location. The commenter suggested that this may be more efficient for 
data providers and might reduce search costs for members of the public 
seeking to access disclosures from multiple data providers. Further, 
one standard-setting body commenter suggested that an already-existing 
registry where data providers self-report data to help third parties 
connect to their data might also function as a repository for 
disclosures of developer interface documentation.
    Regarding the proposed requirement to make information available in 
both human-readable and machine-readable

[[Page 90911]]

formats, a research institute and a trade association suggested that 
data provider disclosures should meet the proposed machine-readability 
requirement if a data provider makes the information available in a 
format that consumers can print or retain. In response to the request 
for comment, one industry commenter recommended that the CFPB should 
either provide a standard for machine-readability or make conformance 
with a consensus standard indicia of compliance.
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing Sec.  
1033.341(a) as proposed. The CFPB agrees with the commenters that a 
central repository could benefit the public by reducing search costs. A 
data provider could comply with Sec.  1033.341(a) by publishing on its 
website a link, readily identifiable to members of the public, that 
redirects consumers to the disclosures required in Sec.  1033.341(b) 
through (d), published on a publicly available central repository, 
provided the data provider does not otherwise impede the public's 
ability to readily locate the disclosures.
    In response to comments, information that is only available in a 
human-readable format that a consumer can print or retain, but that is 
not also available in a machine-readable format, would not comply with 
Sec.  1033.341(a). As explained in the proposal, making the data 
available in a machine-readable format enables third parties and other 
stakeholders to use automated processes to ingest the relevant 
information into their systems for processing and review, which will 
make the process of obtaining this information more efficient.
    Final Sec.  1033.341(a), as well as final Sec.  1033.341(b) through 
(c), will carry out the objectives of CFPA section 1033 by ensuring 
that third parties can efficiently access information necessary to make 
requests for covered data and use a developer interface. By enabling 
third parties to obtain information about how to use the developer 
interface, Sec.  1033.341(a) through (c) also promotes the use and 
development of standardized formats available through the developer 
interface.
Disclosure of Identity Information and Contact Information (Sec.  
1033.341(b))
    The CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.341(b) to require data providers to 
disclose certain identifying information in the manner described in 
proposed Sec.  1033.341(a). Specifically, proposed Sec.  1033.341(b)(1) 
through (3) would require data providers to publicly disclose certain 
identifying information: their legal name and, if applicable, any 
assumed name they are using when doing business with the consumer; a 
link to their website; and an LEI issued by a utility endorsed by the 
LEI Regulatory Oversight Committee or a utility endorsed or otherwise 
governed by the Global LEI Foundation (or any successor thereof) after 
the Global LEI Foundation assumes operational governance of the global 
LEI system. Proposed Sec.  1033.341(b)(4) would have required data 
providers to disclose contact information that enables a consumer or 
third party to receive answers to questions about accessing covered 
data under part 1033.
    Commenters provided little feedback about proposed Sec.  
1033.341(b). One LEI nondepository entity commenter supported the 
requirement for data providers to disclose their LEI, noting that 
consistent use of these identifiers will enable a more efficient data 
sharing process. Two credit union trade association commenters 
suggested that smaller data providers that use a separate vendor to 
maintain their developer interface should be able to provide that 
vendor's contact information for inquiries related to the interface.
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing Sec.  
1033.341(b) as proposed. A data provider is permitted to provide the 
contact information for the vendor that maintains the developer 
interface for inquiries related to the developer interface. The rule 
does not require that a data provider itself respond to inquiries 
related to its developer interface. The rule does not require that a 
data provider itself respond to such inquiries. Rather, it requires 
that data providers provide contact information that enables a consumer 
or third party to receive answers to questions about accessing covered 
data, which reasonably allows a data provider to direct such inquiries 
to a vendor that develops and maintains the interface.
Disclosure of Developer Interface Documentation and Access Location 
(Sec.  1033.341(c))
    The CFPB proposed to require in Sec.  1033.341(c) that a data 
provider disclose for its developer interface, in the manner described 
in proposed Sec.  1033.341(a), documentation, including metadata 
describing all covered data and their corresponding data fields, and 
other documentation sufficient for a third party to access and use the 
interface. Under proposed Sec.  1033.341(c), a data provider would need 
to maintain and update documentation as the developer interface is 
updated. The CFPB also proposed that the documentation include 
information on how third parties can get technical support and report 
issues with the interface. Finally, the CFPB generally proposed to 
require that developer interface documentation must be easy to 
understand and use. The CFPB preliminarily determined that it is common 
practice for data providers that have interfaces to disclose such 
metadata and documentation. Additionally, the CFPB preliminarily 
determined that a requirement to publicly disclose documentation and 
metadata would not materially increase the cost of compliance and would 
substantially enhance the usability of the interface.
    One commenter that provides services to data providers highlighted 
generally the types of challenges industry participants might have in 
accessing data from a data provider. The commenter did not identify any 
particular challenges stemming from the proposal but emphasized the 
importance of industry alignment on the type of information needed to 
access and use APIs effectively. The commenter focused on the 
challenges of accessing and using a production API when its 
specifications are not publicly available and regularly maintained.\79\ 
Another industry commenter supported the proposed requirement that data 
providers disclose information sufficient for a third party to access 
and use the interface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ See, e.g., Dr. Paul M. Cray, Open API Specifications in the 
Real World, at 5-15 (APIContext, White Paper, Aug. 2024), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/CFPB-2023-0052-11139 (noting, generally, 
that public disclosure of performance specifications poses some 
challenges for data providers, but overall is the correct approach 
for industry).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, several data provider commenters and a research institute 
commenter were critical of the proposed requirement that data providers 
disclose developer interface documentation and metadata sufficient for 
a third party to access and use the interface. These commenters stated 
that it is not common practice for data providers to make developer 
interface metadata and documentation available to the public and would 
subject data providers to security risks. These commenters recommended 
that the information required to be disclosed publicly should not be 
sufficient, on its own, for a third party to access and use the 
interface.
    A bank commenter, research institute commenter, and bank trade 
association commenter opposed the requirement in proposed Sec.  
1033.341(c)(1) to update documentation as the developer interface is 
updated. These commenters

[[Page 90912]]

explained that this requirement would be unduly burdensome to data 
providers. These commenters noted that a developer interface typically 
requires frequent, minor changes that do not significantly affect 
access or use, and the proposed requirement would be costly to 
implement. These commenters suggested instead that data providers be 
required to reasonably cooperate with authorized third parties to make 
available documentation in a timely manner that enables the 
connectivity requirements provided in part 1033.
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing Sec.  
1033.341(c) with certain revisions to address commenters' concerns 
about the information security risks and burden. Specifically, final 
Sec.  1033.341(c) requires a data provider to disclose in the manner 
required by Sec.  1033.341(a) documentation about its developer 
interface, including metadata describing all covered data and their 
corresponding data fields, and other documentation sufficient for a 
third party to access and use the interface. Final Sec.  1033.341(c) 
provides that a data provider is not required to make publicly 
available information that would impede the data provider's ability to 
deny a third party access to its developer interface, consistent with 
Sec.  1033.321. Indicia that documentation is sufficient for a third 
party to access and use a developer interface include conformance to a 
consensus standard.
    Final Sec.  1033.341(c) also provides that the documentation must 
be maintained and updated as reasonably necessary for third parties to 
access and use the interface in accordance with the terms to which data 
providers are subject under part 1033. Further, the documentation must 
include how third parties can get technical support and report issues 
with the interface. In addition, the documentation must be easy to 
understand and use, similar to data providers' documentation for other 
commercially available products. Publishing information about how third 
parties can access and use the developer interface, including metadata 
describing all covered data and their corresponding data fields, will 
promote the development and use of standardized formats of information, 
consistent with CFPA section 1033(d).
    In proposing Sec.  1033.341(c), the CFPB did not intend for data 
providers to make publicly available access keys to the developer 
interface or other information that would undermine the purpose of 
Sec.  1033.321. To address commenters' concerns that the proposal might 
interfere with their ability to engage in appropriate risk management, 
the final rule clarifies that a data provider is not required to make 
publicly available information that would impede its ability to 
reasonably deny a third party access to its developer interface, 
consistent with Sec.  1033.321. The final rule's inclusion of a 
consensus standard as indicia for what documentation is sufficient to 
access and use a developer interface is intended to promote 
standardization with respect to the type of documentation that 
facilitates third parties' access to and use of covered data, while 
accounting for information security risks to data providers.
    The proposal would have required documentation to be updated ``as 
the developer interface is updated.'' To address concerns regarding the 
potential burden of documenting frequent minor updates to developer 
interfaces, final Sec.  1033.341(c)(1) provides that such documentation 
must be maintained and updated ``as reasonably necessary for third 
parties to access and use the interface in accordance with the terms to 
which data providers are subject'' under part 1033. This change from 
the proposal provides flexibility for data providers to make minor 
updates to their interfaces without requiring an update to the 
corresponding documentation, as long as third parties can still access 
and use the interface as required by the final rule.
    The CFPB declines to adopt commenters' recommendation to require 
data providers to cooperate with third parties to make documentation 
available in a timely manner. The CFPB is concerned this could imply 
that third parties engage in some affirmative conduct to obtain updated 
documentation, which could undermine the rule's affirmative requirement 
to make the information publicly available, which could create 
inefficiencies for many third parties. Further, the CFPB does not 
believe this change is necessary in light of revisions to Sec.  
1033.341(c)(1).
Performance Disclosure (Sec.  1033.341(d))
    Proposed Sec.  1033.341(d) would have required that a data provider 
disclose, in the manner described in proposed Sec.  1033.341(a), 
information about the performance of its developer interface for each 
month. Specifically, the CFPB proposed that on or before the 10th 
calendar day of each month, the data provider would disclose the 
quantitative minimum performance specification in proposed Sec.  
1033.311(c)(1)(i) achieved in the previous calendar month. The CFPB 
proposed to require that the data provider's disclosure include at 
least a rolling 13 months of the required monthly figure, except that 
the disclosure need not include the monthly figure for months prior to 
the compliance date applicable to the data provider. The CFPB proposed 
to require that the data provider disclose the metric as a percentage 
rounded to four decimal places, such as ``99.9999 percent.''
    The CFPB requested comment on whether the final rule should require 
data providers to disclose additional performance metrics, including 
those required to be disclosed in other jurisdictions' open banking 
systems, such as the volume of requests, the number of accounts and/or 
consumers with active authorizations, uptime, planned and unplanned 
downtime, and response time.
    One data aggregator commenter recommended that a final rule include 
additional performance metrics. Specifically, this commenter suggested 
the disclosures include information about when access caps were put in 
place and how long they lasted, uptime, latency, days of planned and 
unplanned downtime, and days of notice for unplanned downtime. This 
commenter stated that disclosure of these metrics would help the CFPB 
determine whether consumers benefit from their data access rights and 
identify areas where further guidance or action is advisable. Finally, 
this commenter stated that these additional metrics would help third 
parties determine if they were being treated in a discriminatory manner 
compared to other third parties.
    A bank commenter, a research institute commenter, and a bank trade 
association commenter stated that ten calendar days after the end of a 
month is not enough time to publish performance data for that month on 
the grounds that more time is necessary for the data provider to ensure 
the accuracy of the data being transmitted. These commenters stated 
that it can take more than a week for data providers' internal 
databases to populate the required information for the performance 
metrics. These commenters suggested that the period for data providers 
to disclose performance statistics should be 45 days or, at a minimum, 
ten business days after the close of the month. A data provider trade 
association also recommended that data providers be able to make these 
disclosures on a quarterly basis. By contrast, a data aggregator 
commenter suggested that performance data should be available in real 
time and on demand on the grounds that real-time availability would 
help data providers discover and address security

[[Page 90913]]

vulnerabilities in their developer interfaces.
    A bank trade association commenter suggested that the CFPB use more 
precise language in Sec.  1033.341(d) as to which disclosures are 
intended to be visible to the public, as opposed to disclosures that 
should be available only for third parties seeking access to the 
developer interface. A bank research institute commenter and a bank 
trade association commenter stated that the final rule should allow for 
multiple data providers to publish their disclosures of developer 
interface performance data in one location. These commenters suggested 
that a single location may be more cost-effective for data providers 
and might reduce search costs for members of the public seeking to 
access disclosures from multiple data providers. Additionally, these 
commenters recommended that the CFPB clarify that data providers would 
meet the requirements to make performance metrics readily identifiable 
to the public if multiple data providers published their metrics in one 
location. A bank trade association commenter stated that the proposed 
requirement to disclose performance metrics would not result in any 
consumer benefit. This commenter further stated that such a requirement 
would increase costs for data providers but that consumers cannot 
benefit from knowledge of metrics about a process in which consumers do 
not directly participate.
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing the 
requirement in Sec.  1033.341(d), with minor modifications. Publicly 
available performance data will inform consumers and authorized third 
parties about whether a data provider is maintaining commercially 
reasonable performance, which will promote data provider 
accountability. Contrary to some commenters' belief, performance 
metrics will also help consumers who struggle to connect a third party 
mobile banking application to their account with a data provider to 
understand the source of the issue. As an additional benefit, 
consistent with the CFPA's objective under section 1021 that markets 
for consumer financial products and services operate transparently and 
efficiently to facilitate access and innovation, availability of 
performance metrics should also help consumers select a data provider 
by allowing them to shop and select a data provider based on their 
developer interface performance.
    Final Sec.  1033.341(d) requires a data provider to disclose, on or 
before the final day of each calendar month, in the manner required by 
Sec.  1033.341(a), the quantitative minimum performance specification 
for the response rate described in Sec.  1033.311(c)(1)(i) through (iv) 
that the data provider's developer interface achieved in the previous 
calendar month. The data provider's disclosure must include at least a 
rolling 13 months of the required monthly figure, except that the 
disclosure need not include the monthly figure for months prior to the 
compliance date applicable to the data provider. The data provider must 
disclose the metric as a percentage rounded to four decimal places, 
such as ``99.9999 percent.'' The final rule also modifies the heading 
of Sec.  1033.341(d) to ``Performance disclosure'' to more accurately 
reflect the requirement.
    Final Sec.  1033.341(d) does not require disclosure of developer 
interface performance metrics other than proper response, as defined in 
final Sec.  1033.311(c)(1)(i) through (iv). Regarding a commenter's 
request that the CFPB require disclosure of additional performance 
metrics, the CFPB notes that it did not propose specific definitions 
for latency, uptime, or downtime, nor did the commenter provide 
definitions. The CFPB believes such metrics would benefit from further 
analysis to ensure disclosures are made consistently to enable 
meaningful comparisons and analysis of commercially reasonable 
performance. The CFPB likewise declines to add disclosures about data 
access caps to the final Sec.  1033.341(d). Data access caps must be 
reasonable under final Sec.  1033.311(d), but this requirement is not 
part of the quantitative minimum performance specification of Sec.  
1033.311(c). Access caps may vary based on a number of factors, 
including the threshold metric, the type of request, and the period of 
time they are in place The proposal did not define how an access cap 
(or caps) could be disclosed and the CFPB is concerned such a 
disclosure would be complex and disclosed inconsistently, and thus 
would not provide meaningful information to the public.
    To address commenters' concerns regarding the timing for 
disclosures, final Sec.  1033.341(d) provides that data providers must 
make their disclosures by the final day of each calendar month, rather 
than by the tenth calendar day as proposed. Requiring disclosure by the 
end of the next month should give data providers a reasonable amount of 
time to run and audit the required reports to calculate the 
quantitative minimum performance specification, as this is longer than 
the ten business days some commenters suggested as the minimum time 
needed to perform these analyses. A full month to disclose the required 
performance metrics should promote quality control of the data and will 
ensure that the information will be made publicly available on a 
predictable basis. Requiring data providers make these disclosures less 
frequently, such as on a quarterly basis, would reduce the incentive 
for data providers to remedy performance deficiencies in a timely 
manner.
    Requiring real-time reporting of the quantitative minimum 
performance specification as suggested by one commenter, however, is 
unlikely to assist in the identification of security vulnerabilities. 
This metric merely tracks the rate at which the developer interface 
gives proper responses to requests and would likely provide little 
insight into whether an update to the interface had introduced a 
security vulnerability. The CFPB is thus not adopting a real-time 
reporting requirement.
    Final Sec.  1033.341(d) carries out the objectives of CFPA 
section1033(a).\80\ Publicly available performance data are relevant 
for consumers and authorized third parties seeking reliable access to 
consumer-authorized data. As an additional benefit, consistent with the 
CFPA's objective under section 1021 that markets for consumer financial 
products and services operate transparently and efficiently to 
facilitate access and innovation, availability of performance metrics 
should also help consumers select a data provider by allowing them to 
shop and select a data provider based on their developer interface 
performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ The proposal preliminarily relied on section 1032 of the 
CFPA, but it is not necessary to rely on that authority in this 
final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Policies and Procedures (Sec.  1033.351)
Reasonable Written Policies and Procedures (Sec.  1033.351(a))
    The CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.351(a) to set forth a general 
obligation that data providers establish and maintain written policies 
and procedures that are reasonably designed to achieve the objectives 
set forth in proposed subparts B and C of the rule, including proposed 
Sec.  1033.351(b) through (d). Under the proposal, a data provider 
would need to periodically review the policies and procedures required 
by proposed Sec.  1033.351 and update them as appropriate to ensure 
their continued effectiveness. The CFPB explained that, to minimize 
impacts on data providers, including avoiding conflicts with any 
overlapping compliance obligations, proposed Sec.  1033.351(a) required 
data providers to tailor these policies and

[[Page 90914]]

procedures to the size, nature, and complexity of their activities.
    Commenters including banks, third parties, and consumer advocacy 
groups, generally supported the proposed requirements for data provider 
policies and procedures. One data provider industry commenter 
specifically supported the statement that data provider policies and 
procedures be appropriate to the size, nature, and complexity of the 
data provider's activities. Some commenters recommended revisions to 
specific policies and procedures provisions or challenged the CFPB's 
authority to issue a particular policies and procedures requirement. 
These comments are discussed in more detail in this section below.
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing Sec.  
1033.351(a) generally as proposed, with one clarification. Under the 
final rule, as proposed, a data provider must establish and maintain 
written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to achieve 
the objectives set forth in subparts B and C of the final rule. 
Policies and procedures must be appropriate to the size, nature, and 
complexity of the data provider's activities. Further, as proposed, a 
data provider must periodically review the policies and procedures 
required by this section and update them as appropriate to ensure their 
continued effectiveness.
    In light of comments, the final rule includes new language stating 
that a data provider has flexibility to design policies and procedures 
to avoid acting inconsistently with its other legal obligations or in a 
way that could reasonably hinder enforcement against unlawful or 
potentially unlawful conduct. This revision is discussed in more detail 
in the discussion of Sec.  1033.351(b)(2), below.
Policies and Procedures for Making Covered Data Available and 
Responding to Requests (Sec.  1033.351(b))
Making Covered Data Available (Sec.  1033.351(b)(1))
    Proposed Sec.  1033.351(b) would have required data providers to 
establish policies and procedures reasonably designed to make covered 
data available. Proposed Sec.  1033.351(b)(1) would have required that 
the policies and procedures required by proposed Sec.  1033.351(a) are 
reasonably designed to ensure that data providers create a record of 
the data fields that are covered data in the data provider's control or 
possession, what covered data are not made available through a consumer 
or developer interface pursuant to an exception in Sec.  1033.221, and 
the reasons the exception applies. The CFPB explained that 
documentation of the fields that are made available in accordance with 
the covered data definition could help the CFPB identify compliance 
gaps in what the data provider makes available, streamline negotiations 
between data providers and third parties by establishing the available 
data fields, and encourage the market to adopt more consistent data 
sharing practices.
    Under the proposal, a data provider would have been permitted to 
comply with the proposed Sec.  1033.351(b)(1) requirement by 
incorporating the data fields defined by a qualified industry standard, 
provided doing so is appropriate to the size, nature, and complexity of 
the data provider's activities. However, exclusive reliance on data 
fields defined by such a standard would not be appropriate if such data 
fields failed to identify all the covered data in the data provider's 
control or possession. The CFPB preliminarily concluded that allowing a 
data provider to cite data fields defined by a qualified industry 
standard, to the extent that standard identifies covered data in the 
data provider's control or possession, could ease the compliance burden 
on data providers and promote market standardization according to CFPA 
section 1033(d). The CFPB proposed these requirements to facilitate 
compliance with and enforcement of the general obligation in proposed 
Sec.  1033.201.
    The CFPB received some support for the provisions in proposed Sec.  
1033.351(b)(1). One Member of Congress supported this requirement, 
stating that it would help ensure that consumer data are not withheld 
for anticompetitive reasons. Some data provider commenters expressed 
concern that the provision's reference to qualified industry standards 
would be of little utility to data providers, on the grounds that data 
providers would not be able to rely on the qualified industry standard 
to demonstrate compliance because such standard likely would not define 
all the data in the control or possession of the data provider. One 
data provider trade association stated that neither the statutory text 
nor the congressional intent of CFPA section 1033 calls for data 
providers to create and maintain the enumerated records. This commenter 
suggested that data providers already have supervisory obligations and 
that the CFPB does not have the authority for streamlining the 
negotiations of private commercial actors.
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing Sec.  
1033.351(b)(1) with modifications to further clarify what data fields 
are required to be made available. Final Sec.  1033.351(b)(1) states 
that indicia that a data provider's record of applicable data fields 
complies with the requirements of Sec.  1033.351(b)(1) include listing 
data fields that conform to those published by a consensus standard. 
The final rule does not include the proposed regulatory text that would 
have stipulated that exclusive reliance on data fields defined by a 
qualified industry standard would not be appropriate if such data 
fields failed to identify all the covered data in the data provider's 
control or possession. This change conforms Sec.  1033.351(b)(1) to 
other parts of the rule that utilize consensus standards as indicia of 
compliance. Additionally, the indicia approach addresses commenters' 
concerns that such standards may not reflect all of the data in control 
or possession of a data provider, while signaling to data providers 
that they may have additional data fields beyond the consensus standard 
that must be disclosed under the rule. For example, some of the terms 
and condition examples in Sec.  1033.211(d) might be data fields that 
are not included in a consensus standard but would still be required 
under Sec.  1033.351(b)(1).\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ As discussed in part IV.A.6 (definition of consensus 
standard), as a general matter, the indicia of compliance framework 
maintains the final rule as the applicable legal standard while 
giving due weight to a fair, open, and inclusive consensus standard 
as evidence of compliance with the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFPB is finalizing the other provisions in Sec.  1033.351(b)(1) 
largely as proposed. As such, under Sec.  1033.351(b)(1) a data 
provider is required to maintain policies and procedures reasonably 
designed to ensure that the data provider creates a record of the data 
fields of covered data in the data provider's control or possession. 
Section 1033.351(b)(1) also requires a data provider to record what 
covered data are not made available through a consumer or developer 
interface pursuant to an exception in Sec.  1033.221, and the reason(s) 
the exception applies.
    The CFPB is finalizing Sec.  1033.351(b)(1) pursuant to its 
authority provided by CFPA sections 1033(a) and 1022(b)(1). The 
policies and procedures in Sec.  1033.351(b) will carry out the 
objectives of CFPA section 1033(a) to make available information upon 
request by ensuring data providers are accountable for their decisions 
to make available covered data in response to requests, and in granting 
third parties access to the developer interface.

[[Page 90915]]

Importantly, the policies and procedures required in Sec.  
1033.351(b)(1) are intended to ensure ongoing, consistent availability 
of the consumer's covered data fields. While data providers may be 
subject to supervisory requests for information related to their 
current data [filig]elds, as one commenter suggested, such a 
supervisory inquiry would likely occur after a consumer is harmed. 
Conversely, with proposed Sec.  1033.351(b)(1), the consumer or the 
consumer's authorized third party have the opportunity to understand 
why covered data was not made available and potentially raise an issue 
with the data provider, or alternatively to adjust their own future 
requests for covered data to avoid repeated denials.
    Efficiencies in onboarding third parties onto data providers' 
developer interfaces will enable the CFPB to administer and carry out 
the objectives of CFPA section 1033(a) to make available information 
upon request as well as the standardization objectives of CFPA section 
1033(d). Creating a record of what data fields are covered data in the 
control or possession of the data provider will further the objectives 
of CFPA section 1033(a) and Sec.  1033.211, by defining what 
constitutes ``covered data'' with respect to the data provider under 
the rule. Further, the record of data fields required under Sec.  
1033.351(b)(1) will ensure that data providers carry out their 
obligation to make ``covered data'' available, and that data providers 
do so in a consistent, objective manner, that can be reviewed and 
compared with data providers' actual practices by regulators in the 
course of supervisory and enforcement activities. This will ensure data 
providers are consistently making data available to all third parties 
and will reduce the costs of the onboarding process, which has been a 
problem in the past. This standardization is consistent with the 
objectives of CFPA section 1033(d).
Denials of Requests for Developer Interface Access and Requests for 
Information (Sec.  1033.351(b)(2) and (3))
    Proposed Sec.  1033.351(b)(2) would have required data providers to 
have policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure 
that when a data provider denies a third party access to a developer 
interface pursuant to Sec.  1033.321, the data provider: (1) creates a 
record explaining the basis for denial; and (2) communicates to the 
third party, electronically or in writing, the reason(s) for the 
denial, and that the communication occurs as quickly as is practicable. 
Additionally, under proposed Sec.  1033.351(b)(3) a data provider would 
have been required to reasonably design its policies and procedures to 
ensure that when it denies a request for information pursuant to Sec.  
1033.331, the data provider: (1) creates a record explaining the basis 
for denial; and (2) communicates to the consumer or the third party, 
electronically or in writing, the type(s) of information denied and the 
reason(s) for the denial, and that the communication occurs as quickly 
as is practicable. The CFPB requested comment on whether the final rule 
should provide examples or further clarify how data providers could 
reasonably design policies and procedures to account for data security 
or risk management concerns.
    A third party commenter and a consumer advocacy group commenter 
recommended that the data provider be required to explain what actions 
or steps a consumer or third party must take to address a denial under 
proposed Sec.  1033.351(b)(2) and (3). A bank trade association 
suggested that some third parties may be on a sanctions list \82\ and 
asked the CFPB to clarify that the data provider does not need to 
engage with these third parties or inform them of the reason for the 
denial. Additionally, one bank commenter suggested that under proposed 
Sec.  1033.351(b)(3) it would be difficult for a data provider to 
communicate to a consumer why a Sec.  1033.331 denial occurred, on the 
grounds that this denial would typically happen before the data 
provider authenticated the consumer's identity. Finally, a bank trade 
association commenter suggested that the CFPB clarify that records 
explaining why a data provider denied a particular request do not need 
to include the data provider's specific risk management conclusions, on 
the grounds that divulging specific risk management information could 
present additional security risks to the data provider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ For example, a list released by the OFAC, such as the 
Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing Sec.  
1033.351(b)(2) and (3) with certain revisions discussed below. Section 
1033.351(b)(2) and (3) will carry out the objectives of CFPA section 
1033 by enabling consumers and prospective authorized third parties to 
understand and satisfy data provider conditions necessary to make 
requests. Additionally, these provisions will prevent evasion by 
ensuring data providers do not avoid their obligations under CFPA 
section 1033 by denying developer interface access or information 
requests for unstated impermissible reasons.
    Under final Sec.  1033.351(b)(2) a data provider is required to 
reasonably design its policies and procedures to ensure that when the 
data provider denies a third party access to a developer interface 
pursuant to Sec.  1033.321, the data provider: (1) creates a record 
substantiating the basis for denial; and (2) communicates in a timely 
manner to the third party, electronically or in writing, the reason(s) 
for the denial. Likewise, under final Sec.  1033.351(b)(3), a data 
provider is required to reasonably design its policies and procedures 
to ensure that when the data provider denies a request for information 
pursuant to Sec.  1033.331, to the extent the communication of the 
denial is not required to be standardized by Sec.  1033.311(b), the 
data provider: (1) creates a record substantiating the basis for 
denial; and (2) communicates in a timely manner to the consumer or 
third party, electronically or in writing, the type(s) of information 
denied, if applicable, and the reason(s) for the denial.
    The final rule revises the ``as quickly as practicable'' language 
from proposed Sec.  1033.351(b)(2) and (3) to ``in a timely manner'' to 
conform to similar language about timeliness used in the regulation in 
the example to Sec.  1033.331(b) and in Sec.  1033.331(e), and is not 
intended as a substantive change. For clarity, the final rule clarifies 
that the requirement for policies and procedures to be designed to 
communicate the reasons for denials applies to when a denial occurs for 
a reason described in Sec.  1033.331(c), as discussed in part IV.C.5 
above, Sec.  1033.331(c) cross-references the provisions of the rule 
that allow a data provider to deny a request for information. 
Additionally, the final rule requires policies and procedures to 
provide information when information is denied pursuant to a consumer 
or third party request ``if applicable.'' A request for information 
will not always be denied for reasons related to specific information 
requested. For example, a denial under Sec.  1033.331 could occur due 
to the data provider not having sufficient information to authenticate 
or confirm authorization under Sec.  1033.331(a) and (b), or because 
the interface is unavailable, and thus there would be no specific 
information to be specified in those cases.
    Section 1033.351(b)(2) and (3) will provide data providers rule 
with appropriate flexibility to allow them to comply with other 
regulatory obligations, while still generally enabling consumers and 
third parties to understand reasons for denials in a

[[Page 90916]]

timely manner and reduce the potential for pretextual denials. Without 
these policies and procedures requirements, compliance obligations with 
Sec. Sec.  1033.321 and 1033.331 would be difficult to administer, 
ultimately harming the consumer as a result.
    Revisions in Sec.  1033.351(b)(3) are intended to distinguish 
denials from the standardized format requirement in Sec.  1033.311(b). 
The text in Sec.  1033.351(b)(3) retains the ability of the data 
provider to have flexible policies and procedures governing denials of 
information requests. These denials differ, somewhat, from Sec.  
1033.311(b) error codes, because the conditions of Sec.  1033.331(b) 
are not intended to impose specific expectations as to how the data 
provider considers these conditions, whereas Sec.  1033.311(b) error 
codes have more prescriptive requirements, as discussed in this section 
below.
    For purposes of Sec.  1033.351(b)(3), a denial of an information 
request occurs when the data provider does not make data available 
pursuant to Sec.  1033.331(c). Such a denial might be communicated 
pursuant to standardized communication protocols under Sec.  
1033.311(b), such as through an error code. These communication 
protocols might also include communications of other responses that are 
not denials but are relevant to fulfilling the request. For example, 
when an authorized third party requests a nonexistent data field, under 
Sec.  1033.311(b) a standardized response is required to be given to 
the requestor, informing them of the deficient request. Conversely, 
under a Sec.  1033.351(b)(3) denial, a data provider is informing the 
requestor that they are not being granted access to particular 
information in the developer interface pursuant to Sec.  1033.331. 
After this communication, the data provider's obligations to the 
consumer or third party are satisfied, save for the records to be 
retained under Sec.  1033.351(d). Under Sec.  1033.351(d)(2)(i) and 
(ii), discussed below, a data provider must establish and maintain 
policies and procedures to retain records of, among other things, 
requests for a third party's access to an interface and records of 
requests for information. Additionally, under final Sec.  
1033.351(d)(2)(v), a data provider must establish and maintain policies 
and procedures to retain records of Sec.  1033.311(c)(2) commercially 
reasonable performance specifications. Accordingly, records of both 
standardized error code denials pursuant to Sec.  1033.311(c)(2) and 
denials of information requests under Sec.  1033.351(b)(3) must be 
retained.
    For clarity, final Sec.  1033.351(b)(2)(i) and (3)(i) uses 
``substantiating'' in place of ``explaining.'' The proposed rule used 
the terms interchangeably. The use of ``substantiate'' in the final 
rule clarifies that associated evidence for the denial should be 
retained as part of the data provider's required policies and 
procedures. Additionally, this change will not create a substantial 
documentation burden for data providers, given that these records are 
already being kept. Including a requirement for data providers to 
explain the process for the consumer or third party to remedy a reason 
for denial, as suggested by some commenters, would be an unnecessary 
addition to the final rule. The CFPB did not propose these appeal 
processes, and, if there were a denial under Sec.  1033.351(b)(3), the 
process would be for the consumer or third party to again request 
access to the covered data after correcting the deficiency explained 
under Sec.  1033.351(b)(3)(ii). If the data provider denied a valid 
request, then the data provider would likely be in violation of the 
prohibition against evasion in Sec.  1033.201(a)(2).
    One commenter was concerned that it would be difficult for a data 
provider to communicate to a consumer why a Sec.  1033.331 denial 
occurred when the denial occurs before the data provider has 
authenticated the consumer's identity. Proposed Sec.  1033.351(b)(3) 
would not have required a data provider to communicate why a denial has 
occurred before the data provider has authenticated a consumer's 
identity. If a data provider denies a request because the data provider 
has not authenticated the consumer, Sec.  1033.351(d)(3)(ii) would 
simply require that, pursuant to reasonable policies and procedures, 
the data provider communicate that the data provider had not 
authenticated the consumer.
    The CFPB understands that in limited cases, disclosure of the 
specific reason for a denial of access to an interface or for 
information on an interface might be prohibited by law or otherwise be 
inconsistent with compliance obligations or hinder law enforcement. 
Proposed Sec.  1033.351(a) sought to provide flexibility to data 
providers in designing their policies and procedures regarding denials 
of information or interface access by providing in Sec.  1033.351(a) 
that policies and procedures must be ``appropriate to the size, nature, 
and complexity of the data provider's activities.''
    The CFPB believes this language alone would have been sufficient to 
provide data providers flexibility to avoid acting in a manner 
inconsistent with legal obligations or effective law enforcement. 
However, given the nature of concerns in this context, the CFPB 
believes it will facilitate compliance to more clearly state in final 
Sec.  1033.351(a) that a data provider has flexibility to design 
policies and procedures to avoid acting inconsistently with its other 
legal obligations, or in a way that could reasonably hinder enforcement 
against unlawful or potentially unlawful conduct. A reasonable policy 
and procedure designed to communicate the reasons for a denial of 
information or access would not mandate communication or disclosure of 
material that would require a data provider to violate the law or 
hinder law enforcement. For example, Sec.  1033.351(b)(2) does not 
require a data provider to inform a third party that a ``Suspicious 
Activity Report'' was involved in a decision to deny information or 
interface access, because including such information could undermine 
ongoing and future law enforcement investigations by tipping off 
suspects or present other risks.
    However, even if data providers have a legitimate basis not to 
communicate the reason for a denial, under Sec.  1033.351(b)(2)(i) and 
(b)(3)(i) the data provider must create a record substantiating the 
basis for denial. For example, a data provider that denies a third 
party access pursuant to safety and soundness concerns, must create a 
record that substantiates the basis for the denial under Sec.  
1033.321(a). Under Sec.  1033.351(d), the data provider's policies and 
procedures must account for retention of that record, but the final 
rule does not require that this record be disclosed to consumers or 
third parties. Denials of access or information present significant 
risks of frustrating congressional intent, and Sec.  1033.351(b)(2)(i) 
and (3)(i) helps ensure compliance with data providers' core obligation 
under the rule to make covered data available.
Policies and Procedures for Ensuring Accuracy (Sec.  1033.351(c))
    Under proposed Sec.  1033.351(c)(1), the policies and procedures 
data providers would be required to establish and maintain by proposed 
Sec.  1033.351(a) must be reasonably designed to ensure that covered 
data are accurately made available. Proposed Sec.  1033.351(c)(2) 
listed elements that data providers would need to consider when 
designing their policies and procedures regarding accuracy, for 
example: (1) implementing the format requirements of proposed Sec.  
1033.311(b); and (2) addressing information provided by a consumer or a 
third party regarding inaccuracies in

[[Page 90917]]

the covered data made available through its developer interface. Under 
proposed Sec.  1033.351(c)(3), indicia that a data provider's policies 
and procedures regarding accuracy are reasonable would include whether 
they conform to a qualified industry standard regarding accuracy. The 
proposed rule explained that a qualified industry standard regarding 
accuracy is relevant to the reasonableness of a data provider's 
policies and procedures because it reflects the openness, balance, 
consensus, transparency, and other requirements of proposed Sec.  
1033.141.
    The CFPB preliminarily determined that a data provider's policies 
and procedures should focus on the accuracy of transmission rather than 
the underlying accuracy of the information in the data provider's 
systems. The CFPB clarified that this means the policies and procedures 
should be designed to ensure that the covered data that a data provider 
makes available through its developer interface matches the information 
that it possesses in its systems. The CFPB explained that it was likely 
the data provider was already subject to several legal requirements 
regarding accuracy, such as Regulation E's protection of consumers 
against errors, and Regulation Z's protection of consumers against 
billing errors. See 12 CFR part 1005; 12 CFR 1026.13. The CFPB sought 
comment on whether the final rule should include additional elements 
bearing on the reasonableness of a third party's policies and 
procedures regarding accuracy.
    Few commenters expressed concerns regarding proposed Sec.  
1033.351(c). At least one bank trade association commenter, one 
research institute commenter and one Member of Congress supported the 
proposed rule's focus on the accuracy of transmission rather than the 
underlying accuracy of the information in the data provider's systems. 
The research institute commenter went further to say the CFPB should 
consider adding ``accuracy testing'' as an element of reasonableness 
for purposes of Sec.  1033.351(c). A consumer advocacy group commenter 
recommended that the CFPB include dispute resolution requirements in 
Sec.  1033.351(c), explaining that some regulatory regimes, such as the 
regulations enumerated in the proposal, have strict time limits for 
exercise of their dispute rights. Finally, a bank commenter opposed the 
reference to qualified industry standards in proposed Sec.  
1033.351(c)(3), stating that industry standard-setting organizations 
are not well positioned to weigh in on the adequacy of accuracy 
policies and procedures, and generally have not done so to date.
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing Sec.  
1033.351(c) as proposed with one terminology change. Section 
1033.351(c) is authorized under CFPA section 1033(a) for the reasons 
stated above in the discussion of Sec.  1033.351(a) as well as under 
CFPA section 1033(d). Policies and procedures for accuracy will promote 
the use and development of standardized formats by ensuring data 
providers are taking reasonable measures to share covered data in 
standardized formats. The CFPB has determined the mechanisms in part 
1033, including the requirements in Sec.  1033.311(b) with respect to 
standardized formats (discussed in part IV.C.3), are sufficient to 
ensure data providers transmit information accurately. There is 
insufficient information in the current rulemaking record that 
establishes that more detailed procedures are necessary to resolve 
disputes regarding inaccurately transmitted covered data. The CFPB will 
monitor the market and engage in future rulemaking, as necessary.
    With respect to the role of consensus standards in Sec.  
1033.351(c), recognized standard setters are well-suited to address the 
adequacy of accuracy policies and procedures. A consensus standard (as 
revised from the term qualified industry standard used in the proposal) 
regarding accuracy may be relevant to the reasonableness of a data 
provider's policies and procedures because it is produced through a 
process that takes into account the perspectives of all parties making 
available, receiving, and using covered data, consistent with the 
openness, balance, consensus, transparency, and other requirements of 
Sec.  1033.141. Such standards, used in connection with accuracy 
policies and procedures, may indicate that covered data transmitted 
pursuant to an applicable consensus standard will be usable by 
authorized third parties.
Policies and Procedures for Record Retention (Sec.  1033.351(d))
    Proposed Sec.  1033.351(d) would have provided that the policies 
and procedures required by Sec.  1033.351(a) must be reasonably 
designed to ensure retention of records that are evidence of compliance 
with proposed subparts B and C of part 1033. The proposal's preamble 
explained that these requirements would give data providers flexibility 
to craft policies and procedures that are appropriate to the ``size, 
nature, and complexity'' of the individual data provider's activities, 
as required by proposed Sec.  1033.351(a). The CFPB explained that this 
flexibility was intended to help data providers avoid conflicts with 
other legal obligations, manage data security risks, and minimize 
unnecessary impacts, consistent with the SBREFA Panel's recommendation.
    Additionally, under proposed Sec.  1033.351(d)(1), records related 
to a data provider's response to a consumer's or third party's request 
for information or a third party's request to access a developer 
interface would have had to be retained for at least three years after 
a data provider has responded to the request. The CFPB explained that 
this duration would provide sufficient time to administer enforcement 
of proposed subparts B and C. The proposed rule also stated that all 
other records that are evidence of compliance with subparts B and C of 
part 1033 would need to be retained for a reasonable period of time.
    To mitigate the risk that the flexibility of the record retention 
policies and procedures proposal might result in the absence of 
critical evidence of compliance, proposed Sec.  1033.351(d)(2) 
identified examples records that would need to be retained. Proposed 
Sec.  1033.351(d)(2) would have required that records retained pursuant 
to policies and procedures under proposed Sec.  1033.351(a) include, 
without limitation: (1) records of requests for a third party's access 
to an interface, actions taken in response to such requests, and 
reasons for denying access, if applicable; (2) records of requests for 
information, actions taken in response to such requests, and reasons 
for not making the information available, if applicable; (3) copies of 
a third party's authorization to access data on behalf of a consumer; 
and (4) records of actions taken by a consumer and a data provider to 
revoke a third party's access pursuant to any revocation mechanism made 
available by a data provider. The CFPB requested comment on the types 
of records that should be retained, the length of the retention period, 
and the date from which the retention obligation should be measured.
    Commenters generally supported the proposal. Some bank trade 
association commenters supported proposed Sec.  1033.351(d)'s measuring 
of the retention period from the time of response, and at least one 
such commenter supported the proposed three-year retention period. Some 
data provider commenters suggested that the retention period be for a 
shorter duration, such as two years, which they stated would be similar 
to the record retention requirements of Regulations E and Z and would 
reduce the amount of

[[Page 90918]]

time records could be exposed to security risks. One trade association 
recommended that the final rule reduce the retention period applicable 
to responses to requests made through the developer interface. Some 
third party commenters recommended that the final rule include records 
of data providers' limitations of third party access, and that all 
communications of denials be submitted to the CFPB on a rolling basis. 
A trade association stated that retaining records on all third party 
requests would be unduly burdensome for data providers. Data provider 
commenters recommended that the final rule clarify that the provision 
does not require the retention of every login to the consumer interface 
or copies of data made available through the developer interface, 
explaining that such a retention would lead to significant costs. One 
bank commenter suggested that the final rule clarify what is meant by 
``copies of a third party's authorization'' in proposed Sec.  
1033.351(d)(2)(iii). The commenter stated this could be interpreted by 
some data providers as a requirement to obtain and retain a copy of the 
full authorization disclosure provided by the third party to the 
consumer on the third party's own website or mobile application, which 
would be very hard for data providers to operationalize. Additionally, 
one trade association recommended that retaining records on all third 
party requests would be unduly burdensome for data providers. Further, 
some data provider commenters asserted that proposed Sec.  1033.351(d) 
conflicts with CFPA section 1033(c), which provides that ``[n]othing in 
[CFPA section 1033] shall be construed to impose any duty on a covered 
person to maintain or keep any information about a consumer.''
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing Sec.  
1033.351(d) with revisions to conform terminology and clarify the types 
of records to be retained, as well as revisions to specify the duration 
for which records should be retained pursuant to policies and 
procedures.
Retention Period (Sec.  1033.351(d)(1))
    Final Sec.  1033.351(d)(1) provides that records that are evidence 
of a data provider's actions in response to a consumer's or third 
party's request for information or a third party's request to access a 
developer interface must be retained for at least three years after a 
data provider has responded to the request. All other records that are 
evidence of compliance with subparts B and C of part 1033 must be 
retained for a reasonable period of time of at least three years from 
the date of the action required under subparts B and C of part 1033.
    Final Sec.  1033.351(d)(1) revises the proposed language to the 
general obligation to clarify the nature of records to be retained 
pursuant to policies and procedures. The proposal described records 
``related to'' a data provider's response to a consumer's or third 
party's request for information or a third party's request to access a 
developer interface. The final rule contains new language clarifying 
that data providers must retain records ``that are evidence of'' a data 
provider's ``actions in response to'' a consumer's or third party's 
request for information or access to a developer interface.'' Including 
the phrase ``evidence of'' in the first sentence of Sec.  
1033.351(d)(1) is more consistent with the language used in the second 
sentence of that paragraph. For purposes of Sec.  1033.351(d), relevant 
records are those that demonstrate overall fulfillment of requests for 
information. The final rule does not require retention of metadata 
related to individual consumer logins or activity on the consumer 
interface. Similarly, data providers do not need to retain copies of 
every request to the developer interface, or copies of data elements 
made available in response to each request, to the extent requests are 
fulfilled.
    Section 1033.351(d)(1) must be read together with Sec.  
1033.351(a), which states, ``[p]olicies and procedures must be 
appropriate to the size, nature, and complexity of the data provider's 
activities.'' For example, to the extent data providers fulfill 
consumer or third party requests, accurate aggregate data evidencing 
fulfillment, such as evidence of general availability of a consumer 
interface or a developer interface, would comply with Sec.  
1033.351(d). Of course, additional records would be necessary to the 
extent data providers do not make data available to consumers or third 
parties. For instance, if all or part of a consumer or developer 
interface is unavailable for a period of time to all consumers and 
third parties, data providers could retain records of the general 
unavailability of the interface. More detailed records will need to be 
retained to demonstrate maintenance of other policies and procedures 
requiring the creation of records, such as Sec.  1033.351(b)(2)(i) and 
(b)(3)(i) with respect to records of denials of interface access and 
information requests. A data provider also might need to retain 
detailed information for some period of time as part of other policies 
and procedures required under Sec.  1033.351. For instance, data 
providers might need to retain some information about responses to 
third party requests as part of maintaining accuracy-related policies 
and procedures pursuant to Sec.  1033.351(c)(2)(ii).
    Section 1033.351(d)(1) requires that records providing evidence of 
a data provider's actions in response to a consumer's or third party's 
requests for information and records of a third party's request to 
access a developer interface must be retained for at least three years 
after a data provider has responded to the request. The nature of the 
records retained will determine the most appropriate method of 
demonstrating compliance with this retention period.
    In response to requests for clarity of the phrase ``reasonable 
period of time'' in the second sentence of Sec.  1033.351(d)(1), final 
Sec.  1033.351(d) includes new language specifying a more concrete 
period. Final Sec.  1033.351(d) states, ``[a]ll other records that are 
evidence of compliance with subparts B and C of this part must be 
retained for a reasonable period of time of at least three years from 
the date of the action required under subparts B and C of this part.'' 
This aligns with the time period referenced in the first sentence with 
respect to responses to requests for information and access.
    The CFPB believes a three-year record retention period set forth in 
Sec.  1033.351(d)(1) is an appropriate duration to ensure retention of 
records that evidence compliance with data provider obligations under 
subparts B and C. Regulations E and Z, as codified in 12 CFR part 1005 
and 12 CFR part 1026, respectively, implement EFTA and TILA, and the 
record retention requirements under Regulations E and Z offered for 
comparison by commenters are substantively different from that under 
Sec.  1033.351(d). Records required under Regulation E and Regulation Z 
relate to regulated entities' disclosures to consumers pertaining to 
electronic fund transfers and consumer credit, respectively. Such 
disclosures to individual consumers are likely to be stale after a 
period of two years. Three years of records will allow for analysis of 
the patterns in a data provider's compliance with part 1033 over time. 
Moreover, based on the CFPB's supervisory and enforcement experience, a 
three-year retention period is an appropriate amount of time to enable 
the CFPB and other enforcement agencies to examine or conduct 
enforcement investigations. A shorter record retention period would 
make it more difficult to ensure that the necessary records are 
available.

[[Page 90919]]

    The CFPB is issuing final Sec.  1033.351(d) pursuant to CFPA 
section 1022(b)(1), which authorizes the CFPB to prescribe rules as may 
be necessary or appropriate to enable the CFPB to administer and carry 
out the purposes and objectives of the Federal consumer financial laws, 
including carrying out the objectives of CFPA section 1033, and to 
prevent evasions thereof. Section 1033.351(d) will assist the CFPB and 
other enforcement agencies with administering CFPA section 1033 by 
ensuring records are available to evaluate compliance with data 
providers' obligations under the rule. CFPA section 1033(c) does not 
indicate otherwise, for two independent reasons. First, Sec.  
1033.351(d) is a rule issued pursuant to CFPA section 1022(b)(1), while 
section 1033(c) is a rule of construction concerning ``this section,'' 
i.e., CFPA section 1033. Second, Sec.  1033.351(d) does not require 
data providers to keep records ``about a consumer.'' Rather, it 
requires data providers to establish policies and procedures to 
maintain records related to their compliance with part 1033.
    Final Sec.  1033.351(d) does not override congressional intent with 
respect to CFPA section 1033(b)(4) or (c). Final Sec.  1033.351(d) only 
requires records providing evidence of compliance with subparts B and C 
of part 1033, and pursuant to Sec.  1033.221, data providers are not 
required to make available any covered data that falls under the 
statutory exceptions at CFPA section 1033(b). Nor does Sec.  
1033.351(d) require data providers to maintain the underlying covered 
data that must be made available pursuant to CFPA section 1033(a).
Certain Records Retained Pursuant to Policies and Procedures (Sec.  
1033.351(d)(2))
    As proposed, final Sec.  1033.351(d)(2) provides, ``Records 
retained pursuant to policies and procedures required under paragraph 
(a) of this section must include'' categories enumerated in subsequent 
paragraphs, ``without limitation.'' The CFPB is finalizing the 
enumerated categories under Sec.  1033.351(d)(2) with revisions to 
clarify the types of records to be retained, and other revisions to 
clarify how the three-year period in Sec.  1033.351(d)(1) applies to 
those records. In response to questions about the types of records 
required and to conform to language in final Sec.  1033.351(d)(1), some 
provisions refer to requiring records ``providing evidence of'' certain 
activity, discussed below. To provide greater clarity on how the three-
year time period applies to the requirements of subparts B and C, final 
Sec.  1033.351(d) includes additional categories of records that a data 
provider's policies and procedures must include and how the three-year 
period applies, as discussed below.
    Final Sec.  1033.351(d)(2)(i) specifies records documenting 
requests for a third party's access to an interface, actions taken in 
response to such requests, and reasons for denying access, if 
applicable, for at least three years after the data provider has 
responded to the request. Proposed Sec.  1033.351(d)(2)(i) specified 
that data provider policies and procedures must include ``records of'' 
requests for a third party's access to an interface, actions taken in 
response to such requests, and reasons for denying access, if 
applicable; and did not specify a retention period.
    Final Sec.  1033.351(d)(2)(i) revises this language to clarify that 
data providers' policies and procedures must include records 
``documenting'' requests for third party access, actions taken, and 
reasons for denying access, if applicable. The term ``documenting'' is 
intended to clarify that policies and procedures must be designed to 
capture documentary evidence of requests to access the interface, and 
can include but does not require retention of actual copies of 
information. The CFPB is making this revision in light of how 
consequential granting access to a third party is, with respect to the 
number of consumers potentially affected by the decision, the risks of 
pretextual denials, and the complex factors involved in granting 
access, as discussed in part IV.C.4 with respect to Sec.  1033.321. The 
final rule also includes new language clarifying how the three-year 
period applies to these records. Records documenting decisions around 
onboarding will be particularly important for enforcement of Sec. Sec.  
1033.201 and 1033.321.
    Final Sec.  1033.351(d)(2)(ii) specifies records providing evidence 
of fulfillment of requests for information, actions taken in response 
to such requests, and reasons for not making the information available, 
if applicable, for at least three years after the data provider has 
responded to the request. Proposed Sec.  1033.351(d)(2)(ii) would have 
required a data provider's policies and procedures to include ``records 
of'' requests for information, actions taken in response to such 
requests, and reasons for not making the information available, if 
applicable; and did not specify a retention period. The final rule 
revises the language with respect to requests for information to 
records ``providing evidence of fulfillment of requests.'' This 
revision is intended to clarify the scope of records required, as 
discussed above with respect to Sec.  1033.351(d)(1).
    Final Sec.  1033.351(d)(2)(iii) specifies records documenting that 
the third party has followed the authorization procedures in Sec.  
1033.401 to access data on behalf of a consumer, for at least three 
years after such records are generated. Proposed Sec.  
1033.351(d)(2)(iii) would have required data provider policies and 
procedures to include ``[c]opies of a third party's authorization to 
access data on behalf of a consumer,'' and would not have specified a 
retention period. The final rule revises that language to refer to 
``[r]ecords documenting that the third party has followed the 
authorization procedures,'' to conform to the language in Sec.  
1033.331(b)(1)(iii). The final rule recognizes that, by virtue of its 
transmission to the data provider through the developer interface, the 
authorization disclosure received by the data provider might not be 
identical to the form received by the third party.
    Final Sec.  1033.351(d)(2)(iv) specifies records providing evidence 
of actions taken by a consumer and a data provider to revoke a third 
party's access pursuant to any revocation method made available by a 
data provider, for at least three years after the revocation. Proposed 
Sec.  1033.351(d)(2)(iv) would have required data provider policies and 
procedures to include ``records of'' actions taken by a consumer and a 
data provider to revoke a third party's access pursuant to any 
revocation ``mechanism'' made available by a data provider; and would 
not have specified a retention period. Final Sec.  1033.351(d)(2)(iv) 
uses the phrase ``records providing evidence of'' to clarify that 
identical records are not required. In addition, Sec.  
1033.351(d)(2)(iv) uses the term ``method'' rather than ``mechanism,'' 
to conform this provision to final Sec.  1033.331(e).
    The final rule also specifies in Sec.  1033.351(d)(2) three 
categories of records that would need to be retained for a three-year 
period: evidence of commercially reasonable performance specifications 
(Sec.  1033.351(d)(2)(v)), written policies and procedures required 
under Sec.  1033.351 (Sec.  1033.351(d)(vi)), and disclosures made 
under proposed Sec.  1033.341 (Sec.  1033.351(d)(2)(vii)). Although the 
proposal did not specify that data providers' policies and procedures 
regarding recordkeeping include these records, proposed Sec.  
1033.351(d)(2) indicated that the records specified were not 
exhaustive. As noted above, proposed Sec.  1033.351(d) stated that 
``[t]he policies and procedures required

[[Page 90920]]

by paragraph (a) of this section must be reasonably designed to ensure 
retention of records that are evidence of compliance with subparts B 
and C of this part.'' Proposed Sec.  1033.351(d)(2) stated that records 
retained pursuant to policies and procedures required under paragraph 
(a) of this section must include, ``without limitation,'' certain 
categories of records.
    Final Sec.  1033.351(d)(2)(v) specifies records of commercially 
reasonable performance described in Sec.  1033.311(c)(2)(ii), for at 
least three years after the period recorded, which will enable 
enforcement and supervision of final Sec.  1033.311(c). Final Sec.  
1033.351(d)(2)(vi) specifies written policies and procedures required 
under Sec.  1033.351 for three years from the time such material was 
last applicable. And final Sec.  1033.351(d)(2)(vii) specifies 
disclosures required under Sec.  1033.341, for three years from the 
time such material was disclosed to the public.
    A commenter's suggestion to explicitly require data providers to 
keep records that demonstrate justification for limiting third party 
access is already covered in the rule. As proposed, final Sec.  
1033.351(d)(2)(ii) requires policies and procedure to create 
``[r]ecords of requests for information,'' as well as the ``actions 
taken in response to such requests.'' The final rule does not require 
data providers to report access denials monthly. Such a requirement 
would be burdensome without significant additional benefit. Data 
providers must have policies and procedures to substantiate reasons for 
denying access under Sec.  1033.351(b) and the CFPB believes 
administrative enforcement and supervision will be sufficient to 
monitor compliance.

D. Subpart D--Authorized Third Parties

1. Overview
    Subpart D establishes authorization procedures and obligations for 
third parties seeking to access covered data from data providers 
pursuant to the final rule's framework. The authorization procedures 
require a third party to obtain the consumer's express informed consent 
to the third party's access of the consumer's covered data. The third 
party must provide the consumer with an authorization disclosure that 
meets certain content and other requirements set forth in subpart D. 
Among other things, the authorization disclosure must include a 
statement whereby the third party certifies that it will meet the third 
party obligations set forth in subpart D, including limits on the third 
party's collection, use, and retention of the consumer's covered data. 
Subpart D also includes specific requirements that apply when the third 
party is using a data aggregator, and policy and procedure requirements 
related to record retention that apply if the third party is also a 
covered person or service provider pursuant to the CFPA.
    Similar to the final rule, the proposed rule would have included 
authorization procedures and third party obligations designed to ensure 
that third parties accessing covered data pursuant to the rule's 
framework are acting on behalf of the consumer whose covered data are 
being accessed. It would have also included specific requirements that 
apply when a third party is using a data aggregator and policy and 
procedure requirements related to retaining evidence of compliance. A 
wide variety of commenters, including data providers, third parties, 
research institutes, consumer advocates, and a Member of Congress, 
generally supported the proposed approach to authorized third party 
data access in subpart D. As discussed below, other commenters 
expressed concerns about the proposed approach, including concerns 
related to the CFPB's legal authority.
Legal Authority
    Some commenters asserted that the CFPB lacks the legal authority 
for some or all of the provisions in proposed subpart D. Specifically, 
a law firm commenter described authorized third parties as consumers' 
agents and asserted that the CFPB lacks authority to prescribe how 
consumers authorize agents to access data or how agents later use that 
data. A trade association for nondepositories argued that the third 
party obligations should not limit a third party's collection and use 
of covered data. This commenter argued that the proposed rule 
conflicted with traditional agency law, which permits an agent to take 
an action that does not necessarily benefit the principal.\83\ They 
further contended that the proposed rule would impermissibly override 
consumers' choices regarding how third parties authorized to receive 
data may later use that data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ This commenter cited the Restatement (Third) of Agency 
(2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other commenters criticized subpart D but for opposite reasons. 
Specifically, these commenters argued that the proposed approach 
exceeded the CFPB's authority because it would give an overly broad set 
of third parties access to covered data. According to one third party 
commenter, the term ``representative'' should be read as similar to, 
and connected with, ``agent'' and ``trustee'' in accordance with the 
interpretive canon that ``a word is known by the company it keeps'' and 
the canon that when ``a more general term follows more specific terms 
in a list, the general term is usually understood to embrace only 
objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding 
specific words.'' \84\ According to this commenter, representatives 
must have a fiduciary relationship with the consumer similar to a 
principal-agent and trustor-trustee relationship.\85\ The commenter 
argued that it would be inappropriate to allow entities that deal with 
consumers at arm's length in the marketplace and are not in a fiduciary 
relationship with the consumer to act as authorized third parties. 
Similarly, two trade associations for credit unions asserted that third 
party access on behalf of a consumer should be limited to situations 
where the third party and consumer have a legal relationship that 
necessitates the access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ The commenter quoted Dubin v. United States, 599 U.S. 110 
(2023), and Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U.S. 497 (2018).
    \85\ The commenter cited the Restatement (Third) of Agency 
(2006) and also the Restatement (Third) of Trusts (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in more detail below in part IV.D.4 regarding third 
party obligations, some commenters asserted that the CFPB lacked 
authority regarding certain proposed limits on an authorized third 
party's use of covered data.
    After considering the comments discussed above as well as other 
relevant comments discussed throughout part IV.D, the CFPB has 
determined that the provisions in subpart D align with congressional 
intent and are within the CFPB's rulemaking authority. The plain 
language of CFPA section 1033(a) provides that, subject to rules 
prescribed by the CFPB, a covered person shall make available to a 
``consumer,'' upon request, certain information in the control or 
possession of the covered person. CFPA section 1002(4) defines 
``consumer'' as ``an individual or an agent, trustee, or representative 
acting on behalf of an individual.'' \86\ For convenience, part 1033 
generally refers to the individual as the ``consumer'' and an agent, 
trustee, or representative acting on behalf of that individual as an 
``authorized third party.'' As noted elsewhere, the substance of the 
rule aligns with the CFPA's definition of

[[Page 90921]]

consumer, and nothing in the CFPA prevents the CFPB from using 
different vocabulary within the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ For example, Merriam Webster defines ``on behalf of'' to 
mean ``in the interest of.'' https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/on%20behalf%20of.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The provisions in subpart D are designed to ensure that, consistent 
with carrying out the objectives of CFPA section 1033, consumers 
provide informed consent to third parties that access covered data 
pursuant to the final rule's framework, that consumers retain control 
over third parties' access, and that third parties act on behalf of 
consumers when collecting, using, and retaining covered data pursuant 
the final rule's framework. Accordingly, the final rule requires third 
parties accessing covered data pursuant to the final rule's framework 
to adhere to the authorization procedures and third party obligations 
in subpart D, including the specific requirements for data aggregators 
(as applicable). These authorization procedures and third party 
obligations ensure that third parties accessing a consumer's covered 
data are acting on the consumer's behalf. They ensure the consumer is 
effectively informed about and has provided meaningful consent for the 
third party's collection, use, and retention of the consumer's covered 
data, and that the consumer retains the ability to control access to 
that covered data. The authorization procedures and third party 
obligations also ensure that the third party's access to covered data 
accords with the consumer's intent and reasonable expectations and is 
for the consumer's benefit.
    As noted above, commenters relied upon an analogy between the 
definition of ``consumer'' in CFPA section 1002(4) and agency law, but 
they drew opposite conclusions from that analogy. The final rule 
establishes that a third party has a duty to act for the principal's 
benefit in its collection, use, and retention of data, which is in line 
with well-established principles of agency law. Under agency law, an 
agent is required to subordinate the agent's interests to those of the 
principal and to place the principal's interests first on all matters 
connected with the agency relationship.\87\ Similarly, here, the final 
rule limits third party collection, use, and retention of covered data 
to what is reasonably necessary to provide the consumer's requested 
product or service. Furthermore, as a commenter indicated, agency law 
does sometimes permit a principal to consent to conduct by an agent 
that would otherwise breach the agent's duties to the principal, but 
only if the consent is the product of an adequately informed judgment 
by the principal.\88\ Likewise, as explained below, the final rule 
permits third parties to access covered data for certain purposes, 
including targeted advertising, cross-selling of other products or 
services, and data sales, if data access for these purposes are 
separately authorized as a standalone product or service. Including 
those purposes as part of an authorization for the consumer's requested 
product or service would run contrary to the third party's obligations 
to the consumer. However, where the consumer affirmatively requests 
targeted advertising, cross-selling of other products and services, or 
data sales, the third party can obtain meaningful consent through a 
separate authorization for a standalone product or service. Thus, the 
final rule is consistent with common law agency principles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ See Restatement (Third) of Agency section 8.01 (2006).
    \88\ See id. section 8.06 and section 8.06 cmt. b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFPB does not agree with some commenters that the effect of 
subpart D is to override consumers' choices. Instead, subpart D 
establishes a framework to ensure that consumers have a meaningful 
opportunity to understand and consent to uses of data on their behalf. 
The evident congressional purpose of CFPA section 1033(a) is to give 
consumers greater control of data concerning their financial accounts, 
and this purpose would be fatally undermined if third parties could use 
the data in ways that consumers would not expect and would reject if 
given an unobstructed choice. As part of its rulemaking role assigned 
by Congress, the CFPB has crafted a framework in subpart D to ensure 
that consumers are able to make informed choices.
    The CFPB does not agree with other commenters that suggest that 
only a narrow class of certain fiduciaries should be recognized as 
authorized third parties. The CFPB has framed subpart D precisely to 
ensure that covered data are available only to agents, trustees, and 
representatives acting on behalf of the consumer. Regardless of whether 
entities engaged in the current open banking system would qualify for 
that category, if an entity satisfies the final rule's conditions--
including the obligations to act on behalf of the consumer--it is 
appropriate to recognize it as an authorized third party.
    Accordingly, subpart D is consistent with CFPA section 1033 and 
with the definition of ``consumer'' in CFPA section 1002(4). Moreover, 
even assuming for the sake of argument that commenters' narrower or 
broader readings of CFPA section 1002(4) were accepted, the CFPB notes 
that Congress has conferred express rulemaking authority on the CFPB in 
CFPA section 1033(a) and has done so in broad terms. Because all data 
sharing under section 1033 of the CFPA is ``[s]ubject to rules 
prescribed by the Bureau,'' the CFPB has authority to place conditions 
on data access in order to carry out CFPA section 1033 and realize its 
objective of meaningful consumer control of the data that is shared 
pursuant to the statute.
    Finally, although commenters did not specifically challenge the 
basis for the proposed provision requiring certain third parties to 
establish and maintain policies and procedures for record retention, 
this provision is authorized under CFPA sections 1022(b)(1) and 
1024(b)(7), as discussed in part IV.D.6.
Other Concerns Related to the Proposed Approach to Authorizing Third 
Party Data Access
    Some commenters raised concerns with the general approach to third 
party access to covered data in proposed subpart D. As further 
discussed elsewhere in this part IV.D, the CFPB concludes that the 
general approach to third party access to covered data in subpart D of 
the final rule, including the authorization procedures and third party 
obligations, best aligns with congressional intent to ensure that third 
parties accessing covered data are acting on behalf of consumers. 
Additional discussion of these comments and the rationale for the 
CFPB's determination can be found in the remainder of this part IV.D as 
well as in the General Comments Received on the Proposal discussion of 
part IV and in part IV.C.5.
    Some data providers and trade associations for data providers 
stated that the rule should mandate that third parties certify that 
they accept liability in certain circumstances, are adequately 
capitalized, and carry sufficient indemnity insurance to fulfill their 
liability obligations. However, the purpose of the third party 
obligations in subpart D is to ensure that third parties accessing 
covered data are doing so on the consumer's behalf. Content related to 
the allocation of liability between data providers and third parties 
would be outside the scope of this purpose. This is also the case for 
capitalization and indemnity insurance requirements.
    A bank commenter suggested that once the rule becomes effective, it 
should apply to covered data currently held by third parties, to ensure 
that data are uniformly and consistently protected. However, the third 
party authorization procedures in subpart D provide procedures and 
obligations for

[[Page 90922]]

third parties seeking to access covered data pursuant to the final 
rule's framework. As such, the final rule does not apply to covered 
data accessed by third parties prior to the final rule's effective 
date.

Third Party Access Outside the Subpart D Framework

    Two trade associations representing nondepository entities 
commented that the CFPB should clarify that the rule does not prohibit 
third parties from accessing covered data outside the rule's data 
access framework. One of these trade association commenters stated that 
the scope of CFPA section 1033 is limited and does not authorize the 
rule to prohibit third parties from obtaining a consumer's financial 
information outside the rule's framework. The commenter requested that 
the CFPB clarify that the rule does not establish the exclusive means 
for a third party to obtain covered data and does not impose 
restrictions on third parties that access such data without relying on 
the CFPA section 1033 access right. Another bank commenter stated the 
rule does not address how it affects existing contracts providing for 
access to consumer financial data and recommended that the CFPB provide 
for the grandfathering of such contracts.
    Several bank commenters and bank trade association commenters 
stated that the rule's protections should apply to third parties 
attempting to access covered data, even if those third parties do not 
attempt to become authorized third parties and rely on the rule's 
framework to obtain access to covered data. They stated that third 
parties could evade the rule's protections by declining to become 
authorized third parties, by not trying to access covered data through 
the rule's framework, and by relying on other methods to access covered 
data.
    CFPA section 1033 provides consumers, and third parties acting on 
behalf of consumers, with a right to access their data, and the rule 
creates a framework to implement that right. The CFPB expects that 
third parties and covered data providers will employ the rule's 
framework for arranging third party access to covered data authorized 
by the consumer. The CFPB has determined that the rule's framework will 
provide significant benefits to data providers, third parties, and 
consumers. Data providers will receive assurance that third parties 
have authorization from the consumer to access data and a commitment 
from third parties that they will comply with certain consumer 
protections and other obligations, which will promote data minimization 
and sound risk management. Moreover, as noted above, the CFPB would not 
consider data providers under this final rule to be furnishers solely 
by virtue of permitting data access pursuant to an authorization that 
is consistent with the final rule. Third parties seeking to access 
covered data on behalf of consumers to provide products or services 
generally will receive that access if they comply with the 
authorization procedures and other conditions of the rule. Most 
importantly, the rule will provide significant protections to consumers 
by ensuring that third parties are accessing covered data on behalf of 
consumers--as the CFPA envisions--and are taking appropriate steps to 
protect their covered data. The rule does not address the topic of any 
data sharing outside the rule's framework, including through existing 
contracts. However, the prohibitions in the CFPA against unfair, 
deceptive, or abusive acts or practices will bear on any claimed effort 
to proceed outside of the safe, secure, reliable and competitive open 
banking framework that is enabled by this final rule. The CFPB will 
closely monitor the market to determine whether attempts to arrange for 
consumer authorized access to covered data outside the framework 
constitute unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices.
Screen Scraping by Third Parties
    In the proposal, the CFPB expressed the goal of transitioning the 
market away from screen scraping and noted the nearly universal 
consensus that developer interfaces should supplant screen scraping. 
The proposed rule also discussed the overcollection, data security, 
accuracy, and infrastructural burden concerns related to screen 
scraping. As discussed in part IV.C.3 above, to facilitate a 
transition, the CFPB proposed to prevent data providers from relying on 
screen scraping as a means of enabling third parties to access consumer 
data, even though it did not formally prohibit screen scraping. The 
CFPB did not propose requiring that data providers permit screen 
scraping as an alternative method of access, such as to address 
unavailability when the data provider's system interface is down for 
maintenance. The proposed rule explained that screen scraping generally 
presents risks to consumers and the market and that relying on 
credential-based screen scraping would complicate the mechanics of data 
access, particularly with respect to authentication and authorization 
procedures.
    Several commenters addressed screen scraping by third parties. Some 
data provider and data provider trade association commenters asked the 
CFPB to prohibit third parties from screen scraping or to require third 
parties to include commitments to avoid screen scraping in their 
certification statements. These commenters generally stated that screen 
scraping can be difficult for data providers to identify and prevent. 
According to these commenters, detecting and preventing screen scraping 
requires significant resources even for large banks, and cannot be 
accomplished with certainty. Given the risks involved in screen 
scraping, these commenters stated, the obligation to prevent it should 
rest with the third party, which is most directly able to control the 
practice.
    Several commenters tied their concerns regarding screen scraping to 
the coverage of the rule. For example, several data providers and trade 
associations for data providers stated that because the proposal would 
not require all third parties to access data through the developer 
interface, and would apply only to covered data, some third parties 
could still attempt to screen scrape outside the scope of the rule. One 
bank commenter stated that third parties that scrape non-covered data 
could easily scrape covered data at the same time. A data aggregator 
commenter asked for clarity on the use of screen scraping for non-
covered data or when developer interfaces are unavailable.
    Several other commenters suggested that the incentive to access 
data through a developer interface might be insufficient to channel 
data flows through the framework in the proposed rule. For example, a 
researcher and a service provider commenter stated that screen scraping 
persisted in Australia and Europe despite the development of API 
access. One of these commenters asserted that poor API quality caused 
the persistence of screen scraping in Australia, while the other 
claimed that the lack of a ban on screen scraping was responsible for 
the continuation of the practice in Europe.
    In contrast, several commenters, mainly third parties and nonprofit 
organizations, recommended that the final rule expressly permit screen 
scraping in limited circumstances. These commenters generally suggested 
two circumstances to permit screen scraping: (1) when developer 
interfaces are unavailable; and (2) when data made available through 
developer interfaces is unreliable. A few commenters recommended 
allowing screen scraping until data providers have established

[[Page 90923]]

developer interfaces. A nonprofit organization commenter suggested that 
the possibility of screen scraping would serve as a check on 
anticompetitive conduct by data providers and a way of incentivizing 
developer interface quality. Another nonprofit organization commenter 
recommended allowing tokenized screen scraping as a more secure 
alternative to traditional screen scraping. A researcher commenter 
stated that any prohibition on third parties using consumer credentials 
to access developer interfaces risked leaving third parties without 
means of accessing data if the interface is unavailable. A nonprofit 
organization commenter stated that screen scraping might be the only 
means of accessing non-covered data from some data providers. Finally, 
some community banks, credit unions, and related trade association 
commenters also requested that the final rule permit screen scraping. 
These commenters generally believed that data providers should have the 
flexibility to permit screen scraping by trusted third parties instead 
of enabling access through developer interfaces.
    Conversely, many large data providers and trade associations for 
data providers opposed any screen scraping exception. These commenters 
generally stated that any fallback option for screen scraping would 
create the same consumer transparency, control, security, and privacy 
risks the proposal was trying to avoid. Finally, some community banks, 
credit unions, and related trade association commenters also requested 
that the final rule permit screen scraping. These commenters generally 
believed that data providers should have the flexibility to permit 
screen scraping by trusted third parties or build developer interfaces.
    The CFPB has determined that specifically prohibiting third parties 
from screen scraping when they obtain covered data through the final 
rule, or requiring them to make a certification to that effect, is 
unnecessary. The final rule's authorization and authentication 
requirements do not accommodate data access arrangements in which a 
third party retains consumers' access credentials. And the final rule 
imposes limitations on the collection, use, and retention of covered 
data that third parties could not feasibly meet through screen 
scraping.
    Once data providers have enabled the safe, secure, and reliable 
forms of data access envisioned in this rule, the CFPB cautions that 
screen scraping attempts by third parties to reach data covered by such 
arrangements could well be limited by the CFPA's prohibition on unfair, 
deceptive, and abusive acts or practices.\89\ As discussed throughout 
this document, screen scraping poses risks to consumer privacy and data 
security. The CFPB understands that in some circumstances, screen 
scraping may be the only practical means by which third parties can 
access consumer data. For example, a third party might seek to access 
non-covered data or data held by a financial institution that has not 
established a developer interface. But if a third party attempts to 
screen scrape consumer data when a more secure, structured alternative 
means of access is available, such as the developer interface or a 
substantially similar interface, then the third party would be 
needlessly exposing consumers to harm. Depending on the facts and 
circumstances, such activity might well constitute an unfair, 
deceptive, or abusive act or practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ See 12 U.S.C. 5531.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the CFPB has decided against providing for screen scraping 
as a fallback means of third party access under the final rule. The 
final rule attempts to reduce the risks of screen scraping by 
facilitating the market's transition toward more secure methods of 
consumer-authorized data access. Providing for screen scraping as an 
alternative method of data access would undermine this important goal. 
Certain technologies, such as tokenized screen scraping, could mitigate 
some of the risks of credential-based screen scraping. But even 
tokenized screen scraping would not alleviate the risks to privacy and 
accuracy, or meaningfully advance the statutory mandate to promote the 
development and use of standardized formats.
    Regarding concerns that the absence of a screen scraping 
alternative might leave consumers without a means of authorizing access 
to their covered data, the CFPB has determined that the performance 
standards for developer interfaces will ensure that consumers and third 
parties have reliable access to covered data. To the extent that such 
access is interrupted by maintenance or reliability issues, it is not 
clear that screen scraping would serve as a practical alternative. If 
third parties collected consumer credentials in advance of a potential 
availability issue, the resulting mass accumulation of consumer 
credentials by third parties would effectively undermine the final 
rule's efforts to encourage safer and more structured means of data 
access. But waiting until the developer interface is unavailable might 
also be impractical because the sudden request for credentials might 
confuse consumers, and the unavailability might extend to the interface 
the third party seeks to screen scrape.
    To the extent that small data provider commenters viewed screen 
scraping as a way to alleviate the burden of implementation, the CFPB 
has provided alternative means of reducing burden on small entities. 
For example, part IV.C.3 discusses how data providers may use service 
providers that rely on screen scraping to facilitate access to the 
developer interface. And part IV.A.5 discusses the tiered compliance 
dates designed to ease the burden on smaller data providers.
2. Third Party Authorization Procedures (Sec.  1033.401)
    Proposed Sec.  1033.401 specified what requirements a third party 
would have to satisfy to become an authorized third party entitled to 
access covered data on behalf of a consumer. The CFPB preliminarily 
determined that these proposed requirements would, among other things, 
help ensure that a consumer understands and would be able to exercise 
control over what covered data the third party would collect and how it 
would be used. The CFPB also preliminarily determined that the proposed 
procedures would help ensure that the third party would take 
appropriate steps to protect the consumer's data and that the consumer 
would provide express informed consent for the third party to collect, 
use, and retain the covered data. The CFPB preliminarily determined 
that these requirements would help ensure that a third party accessing 
covered data is doing so on behalf of a consumer and not for the third 
party's own benefit, consistent with the definition of consumer in CFPA 
section 1002(4) and as used in section 1033.
    Proposed Sec.  1033.401 would have provided that, to become an 
authorized third party, the third party must seek access to covered 
data from a data provider on behalf of a consumer to provide a product 
or service the consumer requested. This proposed requirement was 
intended to ensure that the third party is acting on behalf of the 
consumer--by accessing covered data to provide the product or service 
requested by the consumer--and is not seeking access to covered data 
for its own purposes.
    Proposed Sec.  1033.401 also provided that a third party would have 
to satisfy the prescribed authorization procedures to become an 
authorized third party. Under proposed Sec.  1033.401, the three-part 
authorization procedures would require a third party to: (a) provide 
the consumer with an authorization disclosure as described in proposed

[[Page 90924]]

Sec.  1033.411; (b) provide a statement to the consumer in the 
authorization disclosure, as provided in proposed Sec.  1033.411(b)(5), 
certifying that the third party agrees to the obligations described in 
proposed Sec.  1033.421; and (c) obtain the consumer's express informed 
consent to access covered data on behalf of the consumer by obtaining 
an authorization disclosure that is signed by the consumer 
electronically or in writing.
    The proposed requirement in Sec.  1033.401(a) that a third party 
provide an authorization disclosure to the consumer was intended to 
help ensure that the consumer understands the key terms of access and 
can make an informed decision about whether to grant the third party 
access to the consumer's financial data. The proposed requirement in 
Sec.  1033.401(b) that a third party provide a statement to the 
consumer certifying that the third party will comply with certain 
obligations would help ensure that the third party is acting on behalf 
of the consumer in accessing the covered data. The proposed requirement 
in Sec.  1033.401(c) that the third party obtain the consumer's express 
informed consent to access covered data would ensure that the consumer 
has agreed to allow the third party to access that data on the 
consumer's behalf.
    As discussed above in connection with Sec.  1033.331(d), the CFPB 
proposed that a data provider that receives a request for covered data 
from a consumer that jointly holds an account or from an authorized 
third party acting on behalf of such a consumer must provide covered 
data to that consumer or authorized third party. Consistent with that 
proposed approach, for a jointly held account, a third party would have 
to comply with the third party authorization procedures in proposed 
Sec.  1033.401 for the joint account holder on whose behalf the third 
party is requesting access. The CFPB requested comment on whether other 
account holders should receive authorization disclosures or otherwise 
be notified, or should have an opportunity to object, when an account 
holder authorizes a third party to access covered data from a jointly 
held account.
    The CFPB also requested comment on whether the authorization 
procedures in proposed Sec.  1033.401 would be sufficient to ensure 
that a third party is acting on behalf of a consumer in obtaining 
access to covered data or whether the CFPB should consider alternative 
procedures. The CFPB additionally requested comment on whether the 
authorization disclosure, including the statement that the third party 
will comply with certain third party obligations, would be sufficient 
to ensure that the consumer would be able provide express informed 
consent for the third party to access covered data on behalf of the 
consumer. The CFPB requested comment on whether the rule should include 
other protections or clarifications, such as express prohibitions on 
false or misleading representations or omissions to induce the consumer 
to consent to the third party's access to covered data.
    Additionally, the CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.401 to apply a 
consistent set of procedures to all third parties attempting to access 
covered data. The CFPB requested comment about whether there are 
certain third parties, such as smaller or non-commercial parties, for 
which proposed Sec.  1033.401 would not be appropriate. The CFPB also 
requested comment about whether the authorization procedures described 
in proposed Sec.  1033.401 should be streamlined for certain third 
parties. In addition, the CFPB requested comment on whether there are 
certain circumstances involving the transmission of data to third 
parties for which proposed Sec.  1033.401 would not be appropriate. 
Finally, to help the CFPB assess the need for potential exemptions to 
proposed Sec.  1033.401, the CFPB requested comment on how individuals 
who are not account owners currently use existing legal mechanisms to 
directly access covered data.
    Several nondepository entity commenters supported the proposed 
authorization procedures. One stated that the proposed authorization 
procedures will help consumers understand and consent to third parties 
accessing their data and that the procedures are sufficiently clear and 
flexible.
    Commenters generally did not oppose the three-step authorization 
procedures, but some commenters recommended certain revisions or 
clarifications. One nondepository entity commenter urged the CFPB to 
consider streamlined authorization procedures when the consumer already 
has authorized access and is seeking to change the authorization by, 
for example, giving access to more or less data or permissioning data 
to additional parties. A bank trade association commenter recommended 
that the CFPB clarify the third party authorization procedures when 
material terms in the authorization change, such as when aspects of the 
requested product change, additional data are needed, or the service 
provider or data aggregator changes. This commenter urged the CFPB to 
require new disclosures and a new authorization when material terms in 
the authorization change. A trade association commenter stated that it 
was unclear whether third parties are required to comply with the 
proposed certification, disclosure, and use limitation requirements for 
non-covered data.
    Several commenters stated that data providers should play a more 
significant role in the third party authorization process. Several 
commenters, including banks and a trade association, maintained that 
data providers, rather than third parties, are best positioned to 
obtain consumers' authorizations. A trade association commenter stated 
that data providers hold consumers' accounts and have account 
verification and access procedures to verify consumers' requests.
    Several commenters addressed whether, as part of the authorization 
procedures, the rule should impose regulatory obligations directly on 
third parties, including data aggregators. Several bank and bank trade 
association commenters recommended that the rule impose obligations 
directly on third parties, rather than requiring them to certify that 
they will abide by certain obligations as a condition for becoming 
authorized to access covered data. These commenters raised concerns 
about how the obligations would be enforced against third parties. They 
also stated that the CFPB should supervise third parties, particularly 
data aggregators, to ensure that they comply with the third party 
obligations in the rule.
    Several commenters recommended that the rule include additional 
consumer protections. A consumer advocate commenter requested that the 
CFPB consider additional provisions to ensure that consumers provide 
express informed consent for third parties accessing covered data. That 
commenter recommended that the rule include prohibitions on false or 
misleading representations to induce the consumer to provide consent to 
the third party's access to the consumer's covered data. Another 
consumer advocate commenter recommended additional consumer 
protections, including requiring privacy impact statements and 
authorizing private rights of action for consumers to pursue penalties 
that violate third party obligations. A consumer advocate commenter and 
a data aggregator commenter recommended that the privacy protections 
apply to any parties subject to the rule. Finally, a consumer advocate 
commenter suggested that the CFPB require a waiting period of fourteen 
days before allowing third parties to solicit any additional products 
or services or at least before requesting

[[Page 90925]]

authorization for certain additional uses, like debt collection, 
marketing for harmful high-cost credit products, and others.
    A bank trade association requested that the rule clarify that a 
consumer's electronic signature on an authorization disclosure is 
intended to comport with the ESIGN Act. One commenter suggested that 
the rule should permit ``clear affirmative consent.'' This commenter 
asked that the rule clarify that a clear affirmative action that a 
consumer takes on a digital interface, such as clicking ``Agree'' or 
``Continue,'' after being presented with the authorization disclosure, 
would satisfy the requirement that an authorization disclosure be 
signed electronically. The commenter suggested that ``full electronic 
signatures'' are an unusual method of obtaining express informed 
consent on a digital interface, such as an internet browser or 
application, would be inconsistent with seeking innovative products and 
services, and could create a barrier for consumers. Another commenter 
requested that the rule confirm a third party may rely on ``click 
through acceptance'' of the authorization disclosure and suggested that 
clicking ``agree'' or ``proceed'' should satisfy the express informed 
consent requirement. Conversely, a consumer advocate commenter 
suggested that the rule not permit the use of click through boxes and 
suggested toggles for ``on/off'' authorization.
    Several commenters addressed how the authorization procedures 
should function for joint accounts. These comments are described in 
part IV.C in connection with the discussion of Sec.  1033.331(d).
    Several commenters addressed whether the authorization procedures 
should apply to all third parties or whether there should be exceptions 
for certain third parties, such as smaller third parties or non-
commercial third parties. A bank trade association commenter stated 
that data providers already have procedures for providing information 
to natural third parties, such as agents, attorneys, accountants, and 
guardians. This commenter argued that such individuals should not be 
required to go through a developer interface, and that the rule should 
exempt natural third parties. A consumer advocate commenter stated that 
the CFPB should consider whether there should be exceptions for 
verified non-commercial third parties, such as family members or 
nonprofit counselors, that may need read-only access to data to help 
consumers manage their finances. Another consumer advocate commenter 
and a bank commenter recommended that the rule not provide any 
exceptions for third parties. The consumer advocate commenter stated 
that there may be situations in which non-commercial users, such as 
executors or guardians, should be able to access covered data through a 
consumer interface.
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing the three-
step authorization procedures as proposed. To become an authorized 
third party, under proposed Sec.  1033.401, a third party must: (a) 
provide the consumer with an authorization disclosure as described in 
Sec.  1033.411; (b) provide a statement to the consumer in the 
authorization disclosure certifying that the third party agrees to 
certain obligations described in Sec.  1033.421; and (c) obtain the 
consumer's express informed consent to access covered data on behalf of 
the consumer by obtaining an authorization disclosure that is signed by 
the consumer electronically or in writing.
    The CFPB has determined that the authorization procedures, as 
described in more detail below, appropriately ensure that a third party 
accessing covered data pursuant to the rule is doing so on behalf of a 
consumer and not for the third party's own benefit, consistent with the 
definition of consumer in CFPA section 1002(4) and used in section 
1033. The authorization procedures will help ensure that a consumer 
understands and can exercise full control over what covered data the 
third party collects and how that data will be used. The authorization 
procedures also will help ensure that consumers are not unknowingly or 
reluctantly acquiescing to forms of data access that they do not want. 
In addition, the authorization procedures will help ensure that the 
third party will take appropriate steps to protect the consumer's data 
and that the consumer provides express informed consent for the third 
party to collect, use, and retain the covered data. The authorization 
procedures clearly apply only to third parties that are attempting to 
access covered data through the rule's framework and the CFPB has 
concluded that additional clarification is not needed to specify that 
the authorization procedures do not apply when entities are attempting 
to access non-covered data.
    As noted above, some commenters recommended that data providers 
play a larger role in the authorization process and have primary 
responsibility for consumer authorizations. The CFPB has determined 
that it is appropriate for third parties to obtain consumer 
authorization for third party access to covered data. The third party 
is providing the product or service to the consumer and understands 
what covered data are reasonably necessary for providing that product 
or service. Assigning responsibility for consumer authorization to the 
data provider could create friction and impair access to covered data 
by authorized third parties. The third party authorization procedures 
ensure that third parties are acting on behalf of consumers and that 
consumers understand and maintain control over third party access to 
their covered data. While the third party is responsible for obtaining 
the consumer's authorization, as discussed in part IV.C.5, a data 
provider must make available covered data when it receives certain 
information, including, as provided in Sec.  1033.331(b)(1)(iii), 
information sufficient to document the third party has followed the 
Sec.  1033.401 authorization procedures.
    The CFPB has concluded that streamlined authorization procedures 
would not be appropriate when the consumer or authorized third party 
seek to change the terms of the authorization, such as to expand or 
narrow the scope of access to covered data. When the parties seek to 
change the terms of the authorization, the authorized third party must 
obtain a new authorization to ensure that the consumer understands and 
provides express informed consent for new terms for the authorized 
third party's access to covered data.
    The CFPB also has concluded that the approach in Sec.  1033.401(b) 
to require third parties to certify to abide by certain obligations 
related to the data access is appropriate. As part of the authorization 
procedures, third parties must certify to consumers that they will 
comply with certain obligations as condition of becoming authorized 
third parties entitled to access covered data on behalf of consumers. 
Similarly, data aggregators also must certify to consumers that they 
will comply with certain obligations. The CFPB concludes that this 
certification-based approach is the appropriate approach for ensuring 
that third parties are acting on behalf of consumers when they are 
accessing covered data. Some commenters had urged the CFPB to impose 
obligations directly on third parties, including data aggregators, and 
to supervise third parties, including data aggregators, to ensure 
compliance. They raised concerns about how the obligations could be 
enforced under a certification-based approach if the authorized third 
party or data aggregator fails to comply with their obligations. The 
CFPB has concluded that these obligations can be

[[Page 90926]]

enforced effectively under the certification-based approach in various 
ways, including by the CFPB using its authority to prevent unfair, 
deceptive, or abusive acts or practices; by other regulators; and 
potentially by consumers under other applicable statutes or common law. 
With respect to supervision of third parties, as discussed in part 
IV.5, the CFPB's supervisory authority is defined by the CFPA. The CFPB 
will continue to monitor the market, including by using its supervisory 
authority, and will consider whether additional rulemakings are 
appropriate to expand the scope of the CFPB's supervision with respect 
to part 1033.
    The CFPB declines to include in the final rule additional 
protections requested by commenters. The authorization procedures 
provide significant protections for consumers to ensure that third 
parties accessing covered data are acting on behalf of the consumers. 
The CFPB has concluded that it is unnecessary to include in the rule 
specific prohibitions on false or misleading representations or 
omissions to induce consumers to consent to third party access to 
covered data. Other provisions of law, including the protections of the 
CFPA against unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, already 
would address such conduct. The CFPB also declines to impose a waiting 
period before a third party can solicit additional authorizations. The 
limitation on a consumer's requested product or service is intended to 
be flexible for consumers to determine for themselves if they want 
multiple products or services, which they can authorize separately 
through the authorization procedures. The CFPB also notes that the rule 
includes a clear limitation that third parties must not expand 
collection, use, or retention of covered data beyond the scope of the 
product or service described in the consumer's authorization.
    To avoid being overly prescriptive, and in light of CFPA section 
1033(e)'s objective of technological neutrality, the final rule does 
not specify methods or mechanisms that third parties must use to obtain 
express informed consent electronically. Regardless of the method or 
mechanism used, the third party must obtain a written or electronic 
signature that the consumer executes or adopts with the intent to sign 
the authorization disclosure. When determining the method or mechanism 
that it will use to obtain an authorization disclosure signed in 
writing or electronically by the consumer, a third party must consider 
all of the final rule's provisions related to the authorization 
disclosure as well as the CFPA's prohibition on unfair, deceptive, or 
abusive acts or practices and other applicable law. For example, under 
final Sec.  1033.411(a), the third party must provide the authorization 
disclosure electronically or in writing. Under final Sec.  1033.421(g), 
a third party must certify that it will provide a consumer with a copy 
of the authorization disclosure that has been signed by the consumer 
electronically or in writing and that reflects the date of the 
consumer's electronic or written signature. Certain third parties also 
must establish and maintain written policies and procedures that are 
reasonably designed to ensure retention of records that are evidence of 
compliance with the requirements of subpart D. A third party may not be 
able to satisfy these requirements if it obtains a consumer's 
electronic signature by certain methods or mechanisms. For example, the 
CFPB expects that in order to ensure accuracy, record integrity, and to 
preserve the ability to access the signed authorization disclosure, the 
authorization disclosure and the electronic signature establishing 
consumer consent cannot as a matter of regular course be provided 
orally and still satisfy all of the final rule's requirements.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ Programs, goods, and services provided to the general 
public must be accessible to consumers with disabilities. Third 
parties should ensure that their authorization and consent 
procedures enable, when appropriate, the use of assistive 
technologies that may be warranted under the ADA or other applicable 
law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule has adopted the proposed approach to authorization 
by joint account holders. As provided in Sec.  1033.331(d), a data 
provider that receives a request for a covered data from a consumer 
that jointly holds an account or from an authorized third party acting 
on behalf of that consumer must provide covered data to that consumer 
or authorized third party. When a third party is seeking covered data 
on behalf of a consumer that jointly holds an account, the third party 
must comply with the authorization procedures for the joint account 
holder on whose behalf the third party is requesting access. Consistent 
with the discussion in part IV.C.5 in connection with Sec.  
1033.331(d), an authorization from a single account holder is 
sufficient for an authorized third party to access covered data, and 
the CFPB declines to require that other joint account holders be 
notified or receive copies of the authorization disclosure.
    Finally, the CFPB declines to establish any exceptions to the 
authorization procedures for certain third parties, such as smaller 
third parties or non-commercial third parties. The CFPB has concluded 
that it would be difficult to define the appropriate scope of any such 
exceptions at this time and is concerned that such exceptions could 
create loopholes. The CFPB has designed the authorization procedures so 
that they should not be overly difficult for third parties to navigate. 
Moreover, the rule does not prohibit persons such as attorneys or 
accountants from making arrangements for the consumer to provide 
financial information, included covered data.
3. Authorization Disclosure (Sec.  1033.411)
    Proposed Sec.  1033.411 specified format and content requirements 
for the authorization disclosure that third parties would provide to 
consumers in order to be authorized to access covered data on behalf of 
the consumer, as set forth in proposed Sec.  1033.401. As discussed 
below, the final rule maintains format and content requirements for the 
authorization disclosure with several adjustments.
General Requirements (Sec.  1033.411(a))
    Proposed Sec.  1033.411(a) would have required that, to comply with 
proposed Sec.  1033.401(a), a third party must provide the consumer 
with an authorization disclosure electronically or in writing. It also 
would have set forth general format requirements for the authorization 
disclosure. Specifically, the CFPB proposed that the authorization 
disclosure must be clear, conspicuous, and segregated from other 
material. The CFPB preliminarily determined that these requirements 
would facilitate consumer understanding of the authorization 
disclosure. The CFPB also preliminarily determined that requiring the 
authorization disclosure to appear segregated from other material would 
help ensure consumers read and understand the authorization disclosure 
by avoiding overwhelming consumers with extraneous information and 
diluting the informational value of the authorization disclosure.
    The CFPB sought comment on whether these formatting requirements 
would aid consumer understanding and whether additional requirements 
should be included in the rule. Specifically, the CFPB sought comment 
on whether the rule should contain more prescriptive requirements, such 
as specifying a word count or setting a reading level. The CFPB also 
sought comment on whether the rule should include a timing requirement, 
such as a requirement that the authorization disclosure be provided 
close in time to when the third party

[[Page 90927]]

would need consumer data to provide the product or service. 
Additionally, the CFPB sought comment on whether indicia that the 
authorization disclosure is clear, conspicuous, and segregated from 
other material should include utilizing a format or sample form that is 
set forth in a qualified industry standard.
    As stated in the proposed rule, the CFPB considered proposing 
specific guidance for accessibility of the authorization disclosure for 
individuals with disabilities but preliminarily determined that the 
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and its implementing regulations 
\91\ would already require that the authorization disclosure be 
provided in an accessible format. The CFPB sought comment on whether 
the rule should contain requirements relating to the accessibility of 
the authorization disclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ See 42 U.S.C. 12132, 12182(a); 28 CFR 35.130, 35.160(a), 
36.201, 36.303(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFPB received a number of comments on the authorization 
disclosure's general requirements. A variety of commenters, including 
data providers and trade associations for certain data providers, some 
third parties and trade associations for certain third parties, and a 
research institute, supported the proposed formatting requirements 
because the commenters thought that the proposed requirements are 
clear, straightforward, and meaningful. A commenter suggested that the 
proposed provisions related to written authorization disclosures should 
be removed because they are unnecessary.
    A variety of commenters, including data providers and trade 
associations for certain data providers, some third parties, consumer 
advocates, and a research institute, supported adding various 
requirements for the authorization disclosure, including plain 
language, reading level, or understandability requirements. One 
consumer advocate commenter supported a word count limit for consumer 
understandability, but a research institute commenter opposed a word 
count limit. This commenter said that a word count limit would not be 
feasible based on the amount of information that may need to be 
included in the authorization disclosure.
    A consumer advocate commenter and two data provider commenters 
supported adding authorization disclosure timing requirements to the 
rule. The consumer advocate commenter suggested that the rule specify 
that the authorization disclosure be provided no earlier than 14 days 
prior to the time that the third party begins providing the product or 
service to the consumer. One of the data provider commenters suggested 
that the authorization disclosure should be provided close in time to 
when the third party would need covered data to provide a product or 
service, and the other data provider commenter similarly suggested that 
the authorization disclosure be provided close in time to when the 
third party first accesses covered data. The consumer advocate 
commenter and two data provider commenters suggested that timing 
standards could increase the chances that a consumer is making an 
informed choice to authorize a third party to access covered data and 
reduce the risk that a consumer forgets that they previously authorized 
a third party to access covered data.
    A variety of commenters, including data providers, third parties, a 
consumer advocate, and a research institute, suggested adding other 
formatting requirements to increase consumer understanding. Some data 
providers, trade associations for certain data providers, and a third 
party commenter requested additional clarity on the meaning of ``clear 
and conspicuous.'' A trade association for data providers requested 
that the final rule prohibit extraneous language that could cause 
consumer confusion or obscure key terms of access. One third party 
commenter expressed concern that the proposed requirement to segregate 
the disclosure from other material would cause consumers to over-focus 
on the authorization disclosure. This commenter supported allowing the 
authorization disclosure to be combined with other materials, including 
disclosures required under Regulation E or Regulation Z. However, 
several commenters supported requiring that the authorization 
disclosure be segregated from other material.
    A standard-setting body commenter asserted that the use of 
qualified industry standards regarding the authorization disclosure 
would not be appropriate for establishing regulatory compliance or as 
indicia of compliance, but stated that specifications and best 
practices might evolve to match the final rule and be used as 
suggestive tools. Some trade association commenters and a credit union 
commenter supported a role for industry standards in authorization 
disclosure formatting because, they said, it would improve consistency 
in the disclosures. A third party commenter stated that when consumers 
have multiple accounts, the rule should ensure that consumers check a 
box or similarly identify the accounts to which consumers are granting 
access, noting that this requirement could be defined by industry 
standards.
    Commenters also provided feedback on whether the CFPB should 
provide model forms for the authorization disclosure in addition to 
setting forth general formatting requirements in the rule. A variety of 
commenters, including data providers, consumer advocates, and a 
research institute, suggested that the CFPB provide model forms or 
clauses for all or part of the authorization disclosure to save time 
and resources and ensure effectiveness, consistency, and compliance. 
Two consumer advocate commenters and a bank commenter suggested that 
model forms would be beneficial for consumers. A bank trade association 
commenter and a data aggregator commenter suggested that use of model 
forms should provide a safe harbor. Conversely, one trade association 
commenter specifically opposed model forms. This commenter opposed 
over-engineered and overly prescriptive requirements for the 
authorization disclosure. One third party commenter preferred flexible 
standards that would allow authorization disclosures to shift with 
market innovations and new technologies.
    A consumer advocate commenter requested a disability accessibility 
requirement to prevent any ambiguity in case there is a disagreement 
about the applicability of the ADA.
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing the 
language of Sec.  1033.411(a) as proposed, with an additional 
requirement. Specifically, the CFPB is adding to final Sec.  
1033.411(a) a requirement that the names included in the authorization 
disclosure, as required by Sec. Sec.  1033.411(b)(1) and (2) and by 
Sec.  1033.431(b), must be readily understandable to the consumer. The 
CFPB has determined that this requirement will help ensure that 
consumers are able to easily identify the entities in the authorization 
disclosure. Unlike a legal or trade name which may or may not be 
familiar to a consumer depending on the particular entity, the 
``readily understandable'' requirement directly addresses consumer 
understanding to facilitate informed consent.
    The CFPB is not eliminating the option for third parties to provide 
the authorization disclosure in writing as suggested by a commenter. 
Retaining this option permits flexibility in circumstances that may 
necessitate the authorization disclosure to be provided in a non-
electronic form.

[[Page 90928]]

    The CFPB is not including the additional formatting requirements 
requested by commenters, including plain language or reading level 
requirements or word count limits, because ``clear and conspicuous'' is 
a common standard that is flexible enough to cover a variety of 
circumstances and ensure consumer understanding of the authorization 
disclosure. The meaning of ``clear and conspicuous'' in this final rule 
should be informed by how the standard has been interpreted in other 
contexts, including by the FTC in assessing whether disclosures in 
advertisements are clear and conspicuous.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ The FTC has articulated the ``4 Ps''--prominence, 
presentation, placement, and proximity--as a way of evaluating 
whether disclosures are clear and conspicuous. Lesley Fair, Full 
Disclosure, FTC Bus. Blog (Sept. 23, 2014), https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2014/09/full-disclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFPB is not including timing requirements, as suggested by some 
commenters, in order to maintain flexibility in light of the variety of 
products and services for which third parties may seek to access 
covered data. For example, a third party may need to access covered 
data periodically, may only need to access covered data at or near the 
time that the consumer obtains the product or service, or may only need 
to access covered data at a later time. Additionally, the final rule's 
duration and reauthorization requirements act as added protections 
against potential harms related to third parties accessing covered data 
based on long-term authorizations.
    The CFPB is maintaining the proposed segregation requirement for 
the authorization disclosure. Combining disclosures or other materials 
that serve varying purposes in the manner that a third party commenter 
suggested could result in consumer confusion. Although Regulation E and 
Regulation Z disclosures provide important consumer protections, they 
do not serve the same purposes as the authorization disclosure, which 
is to ensure that third parties are acting on behalf of consumers when 
accessing covered data. Simply placing the authorization disclosure at 
the top of a combined disclosure form would not sufficiently alleviate 
the risk of consumer confusion. Moreover, segregating the authorization 
disclosure from other material, including other important disclosures, 
allows the consumer to consider the content of each disclosure or other 
document in turn.
    The CFPB is not providing model forms or clauses for the 
authorization disclosure. The final rule provides flexibility in how 
third parties meet the disclosure requirements given the range of 
potential third parties that may seek authorization to access covered 
data pursuant to the final rule's framework and the potential for 
innovation and the development of new technologies. As one research 
institute commenter noted when discussing a word count limit, there may 
be feasibility issues with providing a model disclosure because it 
potentially would need to be useable for multiple different types of 
products and services, multiple data providers, and multiple third 
parties. The CFPB will monitor the market and consider developing model 
forms or clauses in the future, as appropriate.
    The final rule does not reference a consensus standard regarding 
authorization disclosure format because the clear and conspicuous 
standard is well established in Federal consumer financial law, as well 
as other consumer protection frameworks in both State and Federal law. 
Additionally, the CFPB encourages third parties and other interested 
stakeholders to apply to test authorization disclosures through the 
CFPB's Trial Disclosure Policy.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, Competition and innovation at 
CFPB, https://www.consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/competition-innovation/ (last visited Oct. 16, 2024). Under this policy, 
companies can obtain a safe harbor for testing disclosures that 
improve upon existing disclosures for a limited period of time while 
sharing data with the CFPB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFPB is not including disability accessibility requirements in 
the final rule because the ADA addresses these requirements, and the 
CFPB does not want to create potentially conflicting requirements.
Authorization Disclosure Content (Sec.  1033.411(b))
    Proposed Sec.  1033.411(b) would have required inclusion of the 
following key terms of access in the authorization disclosure: (1) the 
name of the third party that will be authorized to access covered data 
pursuant to the third party authorization procedures in proposed Sec.  
1033.401; (2) the name of the data provider that controls or possesses 
the covered data that the third party seeks to access on the consumer's 
behalf; (3) a brief description of the product or service that the 
consumer has requested the third party provide and a statement that the 
third party will collect, use, and retain the consumer's data only for 
the purpose of providing that product or service to the consumer; (4) 
the categories of covered data that will be accessed; (5) the 
certification statement described in proposed Sec.  1033.401(b); and 
(6) a description of the revocation mechanism described in proposed 
Sec.  1033.421(h)(1). Additionally, proposed Sec.  1033.431(b) would 
have required the authorization disclosure to include the name of any 
data aggregator that would assist the third party with accessing 
covered data and a brief description of the services the data 
aggregator would provide.
    The proposed content requirements for the authorization disclosure 
aimed to strike a balance between providing consumers with sufficient 
information to enable informed consent to data access and keeping the 
disclosure sufficiently short to increase the likelihood that consumers 
will read and understand it. The CFPB preliminarily concluded that the 
proposed requirements would be important for consumers to understand 
the terms of data access and would help ensure that third parties 
accessing covered data are acting on behalf of consumers by enabling 
informed consent.
    The CFPB sought comment on any obstacles to including the proposed 
authorization disclosure content and on whether additional content was 
needed to ensure consumers have enough information to provide informed 
consent. Specifically, the CFPB sought comment on whether the rule 
should include any additional requirements to ensure: (1) the consumer 
can identify the third party and data aggregator, such as by requiring 
inclusion of legal names, trade names, or both; (2) the description of 
the consumer's requested product or service is narrowly tailored and 
specific such that it accurately describes the particular product or 
service that the consumer has requested; (3) the consumer can locate 
the third party obligations, such as by requiring a link to the text of 
proposed Sec.  1033.421; and (4) the consumer can readily understand 
what types of data will be accessed, such as by requiring third parties 
to refer to the covered data they will access using the categories in 
proposed Sec.  1033.211. The CFPB also sought comment on whether the 
authorization disclosure should include additional content such as the 
names of other parties with whom data may be shared, the third party's 
contact information, or how frequently data will be collected from the 
consumer's account(s).
    A variety of commenters supported the authorization disclosure 
content included in the proposed rule on the grounds that it would 
provide consumers with information that would enable informed consent. 
A variety of commenters also stressed the importance of keeping the 
authorization disclosure short to avoid information overload for 
consumers. One research

[[Page 90929]]

institute commenter requested harmonization of the authorization 
disclosure with other privacy laws to reduce compliance challenges and 
consumer confusion.
    A variety of commenters suggested that additional content be 
included in the authorization disclosure.\94\ A bank, bank trade 
association, and a consumer advocate also recommended that additional 
content be included through a hyperlink on the authorization 
disclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ One or more commenters requested that one or more of the 
following be included in the authorization disclosure: the legal and 
trade name of the third party; a description of the data security 
and privacy standards to which the third party will adhere in 
relation to the consumer's data; contact information for the third 
party, aggregator, and/or the CFPB; a link to the third party's 
website; information about the frequency (how often data are 
accessed), recurrence (such as one time data access or recurring 
access), and duration of data access or retention (time period when 
data are accessed or retained); a description of any alternatives to 
sharing covered data that would allow a consumer to access the 
product or service (for example, providing a credit score for credit 
underwriting or microtransfers to the consumer's bank account to 
verify the account); the names of other third parties with whom data 
may be shared; a brief explanation of the ways in which data that 
identifies the consumer can be used by the third party accessing the 
data; and the specific purposes for which the third party collects 
and uses the consumer's data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other commenters, including a data aggregator, a trade association 
for certain third parties, a data provider, a consumer advocate, and a 
research institute, suggested that the content should be limited. Two 
of these commenters expressed concern about information overload, and 
two commenters expressed concern about the burden of including 
additional information in the authorization disclosure. A data provider 
commenter requested that the final rule remove the requirement to 
include the data provider's name in the authorization disclosure.
    Some commenters, including a credit union commenter, trade 
association commenters, and a consumer advocate commenter, supported 
additional requirements to ensure the description of the consumer's 
requested product or service is narrowly tailored and specific. One 
data aggregator commenter requested clarification on the description 
needed to identify the categories of data that will be accessed. This 
commenter suggested that it should be sufficient to use categories such 
as ``transactional history'' or ``account balance'' and that it should 
not be necessary to describe more specific data fields.
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing Sec.  
1033.411(b) with modifications. First, the final rule adds a 
requirement, as Sec.  1033.411(b)(6), that the authorization disclosure 
include a brief description of the expected duration of data collection 
and a statement that collection will not last longer than one year 
after the consumer's most recent reauthorization. The content of 
proposed Sec.  1033.411(b)(6) is finalized as Sec.  1033.411(b)(7). 
Second, the final rule removes the word ``covered'' from Sec.  
1033.411(b)(4) and specifies that the disclosure for categories of data 
that will be accessed must have a substantially similar level of 
specificity as the categories in Sec.  1033.211. The other 
modifications are non-substantive adjustments for clarity and 
consistency.
    The CFPB is finalizing in Sec.  1033.411(b)(6) a requirement that 
third parties include a description of the expected duration of data 
access because this requirement is important for consumers to 
understand the terms of data access. In particular, including 
information about the revocation method in the authorization disclosure 
without information about the duration of collection could leave 
consumers under the mistaken impression that the only way for data 
access to end is through utilizing the revocation method. Duration is 
also a key term that may help consumers decide whether to consent to 
third party data access. In the case of a one-time data pull, this 
additional information lets consumers know the data sharing will not 
continue. In the case of authorizing data access without a set 
duration, this additional information ensures consumers know about the 
one-year reauthorization requirement.
    By removing the word ``covered'' from Sec.  1033.411(b)(4), the 
final rule allows the authorization disclosure to include categories of 
non-covered data. This gives third parties the flexibility to utilize 
the authorization procedures to access non-covered data in addition to 
covered data. The additional requirement that the categories used in 
the authorization disclosure must have a substantially similar level of 
specificity as the categories in Sec.  1033.211 will help ensure that 
consumers have enough information about what types of data are being 
accessed while also ensuring that the authorization disclosure does not 
become too lengthy due to a long list of very specific data types.
    Beyond these modifications, the CFPB is not adding or eliminating 
content requirements for the authorization disclosure in the final 
rule, as requested by some commenters. The content requirements strike 
an appropriate balance between providing consumers with sufficient 
information to enable informed consent to data access and keeping the 
disclosure sufficiently short to increase the likelihood that consumers 
will read and understand it. Regarding the commenter suggesting 
clarification on the description of the categories of data to be 
accessed, the CFPB notes that the categories of data that will be 
accessed must have a substantially similar level of specificity as the 
categories in Sec.  1033.211. Finally, the CFPB has determined that 
third parties can comply with the authorization disclosure content 
requirements in Sec.  1033.411(b) while also complying with other 
applicable privacy laws.
Language Access (Sec.  1033.411(c))
    Proposed Sec.  1033.411(c)(1) would have required that the 
authorization disclosure be provided in the same language as the 
communication in which the third party conveys the authorization 
disclosure to the consumer. It also would have required any translation 
of the authorization disclosure to be complete and accurate. Proposed 
Sec.  1033.411(c)(2) stated that if the authorization disclosure is in 
a language other than English, it must include a link to an English-
language translation. Additionally, proposed Sec.  1033.411(c)(2) 
stated that, if the authorization disclosure is in English, it would be 
permitted to include links to translations in other languages.
    The proposed rule stated that consumers with limited English 
proficiency may benefit from receiving a complete and accurate 
translation of the authorization disclosure, and some third parties may 
want to respond to the needs of consumers with limited English 
proficiency using translated disclosures. At the same time, the CFPB 
preliminarily determined that requiring third parties to identify such 
consumers and provide complete and accurate translations in the myriad 
languages that consumers speak may impose a significant burden on third 
parties.
    The proposed rule stated that some consumers who receive translated 
disclosures may also want to receive English-language disclosures, 
either because they are fluent in English, or because they wish to 
share the disclosures with an English-speaking family member or 
assistance provider. It also stated that English-language disclosures 
may also allow consumers to confirm the accuracy of the translation.
    The CFPB received few comments on the proposed language access 
provisions. One trade association for nondepositories indicated that 
the

[[Page 90930]]

language access provision is satisfactory. A consumer advocate 
commenter requested that the CFPB require the authorization disclosure 
to be translated into languages used in marketing. Another consumer 
advocate commenter requested a Spanish language disclosure and stated 
that the rule should require third parties to automatically provide the 
authorization disclosure and other documents in Spanish to all 
consumers. This commenter also suggested that the rule improve language 
access throughout the entirety of the data gathering process and hold 
data aggregators and lenders to comparable standards. A bank trade 
association commenter suggested that the language access provision in 
the proposed rule necessitated additional discussion or clarity 
regarding how principles regarding unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts 
or practices apply more generally to financial products and services on 
an end-to-end basis.
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing the 
language access provisions in Sec.  1033.411(c) as proposed, with 
nonsubstantive clarifying changes. The final rule's language access 
requirement applies to the authorization disclosure and, where 
applicable, the data aggregator certification. The language access 
provisions in the final rule ensure that a consumer understands and is 
able to exercise control over what covered data the third party would 
collect, use, and retain. The CFPB has determined that it would not be 
appropriate to require authorization disclosures to be provided to all 
consumers in Spanish, as requested by one commenter. The requirement in 
Sec.  1033.411(c)(1) to provide the authorization disclosure in the 
same language as the communication in which the authorization 
disclosure is conveyed to the consumer should help ensure that 
consumers receive the disclosure in a language they understand, without 
a broad requirement that all authorization disclosures be provided in 
Spanish, which would result in additional burden on third parties. A 
broad statement about the interaction of principles regarding unfair, 
deceptive, or abusive acts or practices and language access more 
generally is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
4. Third Party Obligations (Sec.  1033.421)
    Proposed Sec.  1033.421 described obligations to which third 
parties would be required to certify in order to be authorized to 
access covered data. The proposed third party obligations included: a 
limit on third party collection, use, and retention of covered data to 
what is reasonably necessary to provide the consumer's requested 
product or service; a maximum duration of collection of one year after 
the consumer's most recent authorization unless the consumer provides a 
new authorization; and certifications that the third party would 
provide consumers a simple way to revoke access, maintain certain 
accuracy and data security obligations, and ensure consumers have 
access to information about the third party's authorization to access 
data. The CFPB stated that it was proposing these certification 
requirements to ensure that third parties accessing covered data are 
acting on behalf of the consumer.
    The proposed third party obligations received a range of feedback 
from commenters, with some commenters offering general support for the 
proposed approach to requiring third parties to certify to the 
obligations in proposed Sec.  1033.421, while other commenters 
expressed concern with the proposed obligations and the associated 
privacy protections.\95\ Some commenters suggested that aspects of the 
proposed obligations do not accord with congressional intent to ensure 
consumers can use their own data for their own preferences, and that 
the CFPB lacks authority to prescribe the proposed obligations. Other 
commenters said the obligations are not strong enough to protect 
consumers' privacy. Specific comments are discussed in more detail in 
the sections regarding third party obligations, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ A research institute commenter stated that the final rule 
should clarify that data generated by a third party in the course of 
providing the consumer's requested product or service is not subject 
to the third party obligations. Use of generated data is discussed 
below related to Sec.  1033.421(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFPB is prescribing the third party obligations in Sec.  
1033.421 to ensure that third parties accessing covered data are acting 
on behalf of consumers, consistent with CFPA section 1033. As explained 
above in the legal authority discussion in part IV.D.1, the plain 
language of CFPA section 1033(a) provides that, subject to rules 
prescribed by the CFPB, a covered person shall make available to a 
``consumer,'' upon request, certain information in the control or 
possession of the covered person. CFPA section 1002(4) defines 
``consumer'' as ``an individual or an agent, trustee, or representative 
acting on behalf of an individual.'' For convenience, part 1033 
generally refers to the individual as the ``consumer'' and an agent, 
trustee, or representative acting on behalf of that individual as an 
``authorized third party.'' Congress intended, through CFPA section 
1033, that the consumer would have the right to access their covered 
data for their own benefit, and would be able to authorize 
representatives to act on their behalf to that end. As such, the final 
rule requires third parties accessing covered data to adhere to the 
procedures and obligations in subpart D, including certifying to limit 
collection, use, and retention of covered data to what is reasonably 
necessary to provide the consumer's requested product or service, so as 
to ensure that the third party is accessing data as a representative 
acting on behalf of the consumer and that the consumer is the primary 
beneficiary of that data access. In addition, as noted above, the CFPB 
has rulemaking authority to adopt Sec.  1033.421 to carry out the 
objectives of CFPA section 1033.
    By adhering to the obligations in Sec.  1033.421, a third party, as 
a representative acting on behalf of the consumer, ensures consumers 
are best positioned to understand the data access they are authorizing 
and accordingly are best positioned to exercise meaningful control with 
respect to such access. As such, the obligations in Sec.  1033.421 
ensure the consumer is effectively informed about the scope of the 
third party's access to covered data and ensure that the third party's 
access accords with the intent and reasonable expectations of the 
consumer. For example, the third party's adherence to Sec.  1033.421(a) 
ensures the consumer understands and clearly directs how and for what 
purposes their data will be collected, used, and retained.
    For the reasons discussed herein, final Sec.  1033.421 generally 
adopts the proposed third party obligations. Changes related to 
specific aspects of the proposed obligations are described in detail 
below.
General Standard To Limit Collection, Use, and Retention (Sec.  
1033.421(a))
    Under proposed Sec.  1033.421(a)(1), third parties would have been 
required to limit collection, use, and retention of covered data to 
what is reasonably necessary to provide the consumer's requested 
product or service. Proposed Sec.  1033.421(a)(2) would have provided 
that, for purposes of the limitation in proposed Sec.  1033.421(a)(1), 
certain listed activities would not be part of, or reasonably necessary 
to provide, any other product or service. Under these proposed 
provisions, third parties would seek and obtain consumer authorization 
to access covered data only as reasonably necessary for the provision 
of the product or service that the consumer requested, and not for uses 
that are secondary to that purpose.

[[Page 90931]]

    The proposed rule explained that the limit on collection, use, and 
retention of covered data in Sec.  1033.421(a) was designed to ensure 
that, consistent with carrying out the objectives of CFPA section 1033, 
third parties that access covered data would act on behalf of 
consumers, and that third party collection, use, and retention of 
covered data would proceed in alignment with consumer control and truly 
informed consent. Specifically, proposed Sec.  1033.421(a) was aimed at 
ensuring that third parties access covered data for the consumer's 
benefit, that consumers retain meaningful control over their data when 
authorizing third party access to that data, and that consumers are 
best positioned to understand the scope of that authorization. In 
addition, proposed Sec.  1033.421(a) was aimed at ensuring consumers do 
not unknowingly or reluctantly acquiesce to data collection, use, and 
retention that they do not want. Further, the proposed rule noted that 
covered data that third parties would collect, use, and retain pursuant 
to consumer authorization would include sensitive financial data that 
might subject consumers to fraud or identity theft if it were 
exposed.\96\ The proposed rule stated that the limitation in Sec.  
1033.421(a) was designed to ensure that third parties would act on 
behalf of consumers when accessing that sensitive data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ These sensitive data also could impact persons or entities 
besides the consumer from whom they are sourced, especially when 
collected, used, and retained in large amounts, such as where the 
data are matched with other consumer data sets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFPB is generally finalizing Sec.  1033.421(a) as proposed. 
Feedback from commenters, and the CFPB's approach in the final rule, 
are discussed further below related to each aspect of the general data 
limitation standard.
In General (Sec.  1033.421(a)(1))
    The CFPB is finalizing Sec.  1033.421(a)(1) as proposed. Under 
final Sec.  1033.421(a)(1), third parties must certify to limit 
collection, use, and retention of covered data to what is reasonably 
necessary to provide the consumer's requested product or service. 
Specific aspects of the standard in Sec.  1033.421(a)(1), including 
comments received and rationale for the final provisions, are discussed 
below.
Reasonably Necessary
    As described in the proposed rule, the reasonably necessary 
standard was designed to ensure that the consumer is the primary 
beneficiary of any authorized data access, and that the resulting 
collection, use, and retention of covered data align with consumer 
control and informed consent. The CFPB considered a range of 
alternatives to this standard, including evaluating limitation 
standards in other data privacy regimes.\97\ For example, the CFPB 
considered whether data collection, use, and retention should be 
limited to what is ``strictly necessary,'' ``adequate,'' ``relevant,'' 
or ``legitimate.'' The CFPB preliminarily determined that a reasonably 
necessary standard would be flexible enough that third parties could 
use data for a variety of purposes to provide the product or service 
the consumer requested, but would still sufficiently minimize third 
party collection, use, and retention to ensure third parties accessing 
covered data are acting on behalf of the consumer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ The proposed rule stated that the reasonably necessary 
standard in proposed Sec.  1033.421(a)(1) would be similar to 
standards in several data privacy frameworks that minimize third 
parties' collection, use, and retention of data. See, e.g., 
Competition and Consumer (Consumer Data Right) Rules 2020, div. 1.3 
(Austl.) (minimizing consumer data requests to what is ``reasonably 
needed''); Reg. 2016/679, art. 5(1)(c), 2016 O.J. (L 119) 7 (EU) 
(``Personal data shall be . . . limited to what is necessary in 
relation to the purposes for which they are processed.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The reasonably necessary standard received general support from 
many commenters, including data providers, consumer advocates, third 
parties, data aggregators, Members of Congress, trade associations for 
data providers, and others. These commenters expressed support for 
third parties generally limiting their collection, use, and retention 
of data based on what is reasonably necessary. Some commenters who 
supported the reasonably necessary standard offered for consideration 
various clarifications or feedback on other aspects of the rule, like 
how the standard might apply to collection, use, or retention 
separately. These comments are discussed below related to those 
provisions.
    Some commenters--mostly third parties and related trade 
associations, but also some banks, trade associations for data 
providers, and consumer advocates--expressed concerns about the 
proposed reasonably necessary standard. Some of these commenters 
posited that the proposed standard is stricter than other privacy 
regimes, might result in unintended consequences for consumers, does 
not give consumers meaningful control, or would result in an unlevel 
playing field between data providers and third parties. Other 
commenters suggested that the reasonably necessary standard does not go 
far enough to constrain downstream data uses not requested by consumers 
or to curb activities by data aggregators that would not be necessary 
for the provision of the product or service. Other commenters suggested 
alternative standards, either from industry or from other privacy laws, 
regulations, and principles. Some commenters suggested that collection, 
use, and retention each should be governed by different standards. In 
contrast, some third party commenters stated that the reasonably 
necessary standard for collection is too rigid and impractical for some 
products and services. Comments related to the application of the 
general limitation standard to collection, use, and retention are 
discussed separately below in more detail.
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing the 
reasonably necessary standard in Sec.  1033.421(a) as proposed. The 
CFPB considered whether a stricter standard should apply to more 
sensitive types of data, and generally whether other standards would be 
more consumer protective. After considering comments received and the 
CFPB's evaluation of alternatives, the CFPB has determined that the 
reasonably necessary standard is sufficiently flexible for third 
parties to collect, use, and retain covered data for a variety of 
purposes to provide the product or service the consumer requested, but 
will still sufficiently minimize third party collection, use, and 
retention to ensure third parties accessing covered data are acting on 
behalf of the consumer. The CFPB disagrees with commenters that 
suggested the standard is too rigid or impractical, or too permissive 
for third parties such that it would not protect consumers from 
downstream uses or result in other unintended consequences. The 
reasonably necessary standard will protect consumers from unwanted data 
collection, use, and retention while giving third parties sufficient 
flexibility to collect, use, and retain data to provide consumers the 
products or services they request. As such, the CFPB declines to make 
commenters' suggested changes to the proposed standard.
    As described further below, the CFPB has determined that 
collection, use, and retention of covered data beyond what is 
reasonably necessary for the product or service the consumer requested 
would undermine the consumer's understanding of the authorizations they 
provided and would thus undermine a consumer's ability to control their 
data. The third party obligations, including the limit on collection, 
use, and retention of covered data, are designed to ensure that the 
third party is accessing covered data for the consumer and that 
accordingly the

[[Page 90932]]

consumer is the primary beneficiary of that data access. Third parties 
can benefit from access to covered data, but only by collecting, using, 
and retaining data as reasonably necessary to provide the consumer's 
requested product or service.\98\ A third party that collects, uses, or 
retains data in a manner that benefits the third party but that is not 
reasonably necessary for the product or service the consumer requested 
would not be acting on behalf of the consumer. In that situation, the 
third party would be advancing their own the interests, and not the 
interests of the consumer, and as such would not be acting as a 
representative acting on behalf of the consumer within the meaning of 
CFPA section 1002(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ Consumers benefit by authorizing third parties to collect, 
use, or retain their data for the product or service they request, 
and from having confidence third parties will not do so other 
purposes. The third party's obligations to the consumer do not 
prevent the third party from benefiting from access to covered data. 
As noted above, third parties can benefit from such access by 
collecting, using, and retaining data as reasonably necessary to 
provide the consumer's requested product or service. In other words, 
the way a third party can benefit is through the opportunity to 
provide the consumer the product or service that they are 
requesting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consumer's Requested Product or Service
    Under proposed Sec.  1033.421(a)(1), third parties would have been 
required to limit collection, use, and retention of covered data to 
what is reasonably necessary to provide the consumer's requested 
product or service. The second aspect of this standard, ``the 
consumer's requested product or service,'' was designed to carry out 
the objectives of CFPA section 1033. The proposed rule explained that 
consumers generally go into the market seeking the core function of a 
product or service and, when authorizing data access, intend for their 
data to be accessed for that purpose. The proposed rule explained 
further that third parties can significantly benefit from accessing 
consumers' covered data, and consumers often do not know about various 
data uses, do not want companies to use their data broadly, and also 
generally lack bargaining power to adequately protect their data 
privacy. The proposed rule stated that, as a result of this imbalance, 
third parties often broadly collect, use, and retain covered data for 
their own benefit. The CFPB preliminarily determined that the proposed 
standard being grounded in the ``consumer's requested product or 
service'' would ensure third parties only collect, use, and retain 
covered data on consumers' behalf, pursuant to informed consent.
    To avoid circumvention of this standard, the CFPB proposed to treat 
the product or service as the core function that the consumer sought in 
the market and that accrues to the consumer's benefit. The preamble to 
the proposed rule explained that the scope of the product or service 
would not be defined by disclosures, and the CFPB noted its concern 
that disclosures could be used to create technical loopholes by 
expanding the scope of the product or service the consumer requested to 
include any activity the company would choose, including those that 
would benefit the third party, not the consumer. As such, proposed 
Sec.  1033.421(a)(1) was intended to help ensure that third parties act 
for the benefit of consumers, that consumers retain control over their 
authorizations for data access, and that consumers are best positioned 
to provide meaningfully informed consent to third party collection, 
use, and retention of their covered data.
    Some commenters requested clarifications or suggested that the 
proposed general standard should be changed with respect to its 
approach to the consumer's requested product or service. A data 
aggregator commenter stated that the final rule should rely on 
``reasonably necessary'' only, and should not limit collection, use, or 
retention by the consumer's requested product or service. This 
commenter stated that this change would allow third parties to use 
previously collected data as reasonably necessary to provide additional 
products or services the consumer requests at a later time. Other 
commenters requested clarifications about the proposal's approach to 
the consumer's requested product or service. For example, a trade 
association for data providers, a data provider, and a third party 
requested that the phrase ``consumer's requested product or service'' 
be defined or clarified. A trade association for data providers further 
stated that the description of the consumer's requested product or 
service in the preamble to the proposed rule gave the impression that 
the CFPB intended to decide on a case-by-case basis, based on specific 
consumer understanding, what the scope of a requested product or 
service is and then determine whether data access based on that scope 
was reasonably necessary. A third party stated that the scope of a 
consumer's requested product or service would be unclear in light of 
how products or services are currently offered to consumers in the 
market, as the preamble to the proposed rule potentially would have 
divided a product or service by its core functions or component parts.
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing Sec.  
1033.421(a) as proposed. Under final Sec.  1033.421(a), a third party's 
collection, use, and retention of covered data must be reasonably 
necessary to provide the ``consumer's requested product or service.'' 
By limiting third party collection, use, and retention of covered data 
based on ``the consumer's requested product of service,'' the final 
rule ensures that such collection, use, and retention is for the 
consumer's benefit, that consumers retain control over their 
authorizations for data access, and that consumers are best positioned 
to providing meaningfully informed consent to third party collection, 
use, and retention of covered data. As such, the CFPB declines to adopt 
commenters' suggestions to finalize the general limitation standard 
without reference to the ``consumer's requested product or service,'' 
or to otherwise expand the general limitation standard in ways that 
would allow for covered data to be used for additional products or 
services or other purposes.
    To address commenters' concerns about potential confusion, the CFPB 
notes that ``the consumer's requested product or service'' in Sec.  
1033.421(a) is not intended to result in a case-by-case inquiry into a 
specific consumer's understanding of the requested product or service. 
Rather, what constitutes a consumer's requested product or service is 
informed by context, such as general public understanding of what 
attributes a given product or service has or how the product or service 
functions in the market. The third party cannot rely on disclosures to 
expand the scope of a consumer's requested product or service or use 
disclosures to create technical loopholes and include any purposes the 
company chooses. The CFPB notes that, in the course of seeking 
authorization to access covered data, some third parties might attempt 
to expand the scope of products or services offered to consumers in an 
effort to access covered data for purposes that do not primarily 
benefit consumers. Along those same lines, some third parties might 
purport to offer a product or service to a consumer that is merely a 
pretext for collecting, using, and retaining covered data from the 
consumer.\99\ Where third parties seek to use data to advance their own 
interests, rather than to act for the consumer, such actions would not 
be on

[[Page 90933]]

behalf of the consumer, and thus would not be in accordance with the 
text of sections 1002 and 1033 of the CFPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ The CFPB notes that such a practice would be inconsistent 
with Sec.  1033.401, which provides that third parties must seek 
access to covered data on behalf of the consumer to provide a 
product or service the consumer requested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the CFPB notes that the discussion in the proposal's 
preamble related to the product or service's core function was not 
intended to suggest that each product or service would necessarily have 
only a single attribute. As described above, if a consumer requests a 
product or service with a commonly understood set of attributes, the 
third party cannot expand the scope of the product or service for 
purposes of Sec.  1033.421(a) by including in its disclosures to 
consumers attributes that are not consistent with the general public 
understanding of that product or service or how that product or service 
functions in the market. Whether attributes are associated with a 
product or service could be indicated if those attributes are widely 
available as, or generally compose, those products or services. While a 
third party might offer to a consumer, even within a single mobile 
application, two products or services for which a consumer might 
authorize data access, like a budgeting service and a payments service, 
these services are sufficiently different as to necessitate two 
separate authorizations for the purposes of Sec.  1033.421(a). 
Similarly, while a credit card and a prepaid card share many 
attributes, they are, and are commonly understood to be, different 
types of products. Accordingly, authorization for data access to 
provide a credit card would not be sufficient authorization for data 
access to provide a prepaid card.
Specific Purposes (Sec.  1033.421(a)(2))
Proposed Rule
    In addition to the general limitation on collection, use, and 
retention of covered data in Sec.  1033.421(a)(1), proposed Sec.  
1033.421(a)(2) stated that targeted advertising, cross-selling of other 
products or services, or the sale of covered data would not be part of, 
or reasonably necessary to provide, any other product or service. 
Relying on stakeholder feedback and research, the proposed rule 
described that third parties generally do not include these activities 
in products or services for consumers' benefit, but instead do so for 
their own benefit.\100\ These activities are pervasive in the market, 
consumers often lack choices about whether their data can be used for 
these purposes, and consumers often do not expect their data to be used 
for them. In addition, the CFPB stated that consumers often do not 
understand these activities' potential for harm, while also noting that 
third parties can greatly benefit from these activities. For all these 
reasons, the CFPB preliminarily determined that when a third party 
combines targeted advertising, cross-selling, and data sales with any 
other consumer requested products or services, it is generally doing so 
for its own benefit, and that such combination would interfere with 
consumer control and understanding. The CFPB also preliminarily 
determined that it would not be consistent with carrying out the 
objectives of CFPA section 1033 for a third party to consider 
collection, use, or retention of data for these purposes to be within 
the scope of the consumer's requested product or service for purposes 
of proposed Sec.  1033.421(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ See, e.g., Rodney John Garratt & Michael Junho Lee, 
Monetizing Privacy, at 4, Fed. Rsrv. Bank of N.Y. Staff Rep. No. 958 
(Jan. 2021), https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr958.pdf (``Most of the gains from consumer data do 
not go to consumers.''); Raheel A. Chaudhry & Paul D. Berger, Ethics 
in Data Collection and Advertising, 2 GPH Int'l J. of Bus. Mgmt. 1, 
5-6 (2019), http://www.gphjournal.org/index.php/bm/article/view/240/110 (stating that targeted advertising and data monetization allow 
companies to collect, use, and retain ``consumer data without the 
user being any the wiser,'' and that targeted advertising and data 
monetization elevate ``the risk involved in data breaches and 
malicious parties buying consumer data on the secondary data 
market'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFPB explained that proposed Sec.  1033.421(a)(2) would not 
prevent third parties from engaging in the specified activities as 
standalone products. To the extent the core function that the consumer 
seeks out in the market is such an activity, a third party could 
potentially provide that core function to the consumer consistent with, 
and subject to, the terms of the proposed rule. Any such offering would 
be subject to other applicable laws, including the CFPA's prohibition 
on unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices.
Comments Received
    Commenter feedback on the proposed limitation on targeted 
advertising, cross-selling of other products or services, and data 
sales was varied. Some consumer advocates, data providers, and trade 
associations representing data providers expressed support for the 
proposed limitation in Sec.  1033.431(a)(2). For example, some trade 
associations representing data providers stated that dark patterns or 
other deceptive practices from third parties result in consumers giving 
consent to activities consumers are not aware of, especially related to 
data sales and targeted marketing, and that requiring third parties to 
separately follow the authorization procedures to obtain consumer 
authorizations for these activities would be beneficial to consumers. 
An individual commenter similarly stated that consumers should not 
become subject to ``surveillance capitalism'' through authorization of 
third parties' use of covered data.
    Various commenters, including trade associations for data 
providers, data providers, trade associations for nondepositories, data 
aggregators, consumer advocates, and others, appeared to have different 
understandings about whether the proposed limitation in Sec.  
1033.421(a)(2) would prohibit consumers from authorizing their data to 
be accessed for these purposes. Some commenters appeared to interpret 
the proposal as a prohibition on such authorization. Others appeared to 
understand the proposal as permitting third parties, using covered data 
pursuant to consumer authorization, to engage in targeted advertising, 
cross-selling, and data sales as standalone products the consumer seeks 
out in the market. At least one trade association for data providers 
appeared unsure if the proposal would prohibit these activities, 
stating that the meaning of the phrase in the rule ``any other product 
or service'' is unclear.
    Various commenters, including data providers, trade associations 
for data providers, consumer advocates, and other trade associations, 
asked for definitions of targeted advertising, cross-selling, and data 
sales. A consumer advocate and a trade association representing data 
providers proffered potential definitions. These commenters suggested 
that, without clarity on the bounds of these terms, the rule would lack 
sufficient clarity because the terms have broad and varied meaning in 
the market. For example, these commenters said the term targeted 
advertising is potentially broad and could cover advertising that uses 
consumers' personal characteristics and could also potentially include 
other concepts like contextual marketing that does not require precise 
identifiers. These commenters were also concerned about the definition 
of cross-selling because, as described by these commenters, the term 
could include some traditional attributes of personal financial 
management services that offer recommendations to consumers. A data 
provider commenter noted that the CFPB has not previously defined 
cross-selling of other products or services or data sales. A consumer 
advocate commenter suggested that the CFPB define data sales as the 
``sale, rental, exchange, or other transfer or use not otherwise 
authorized.'' Finally, two trade associations representing data

[[Page 90934]]

providers requested that the CFPB develop a clear concept or definition 
of what ``any other product or service,'' means, and what ``standalone 
product'' means, as these terms may not have been clear in the proposed 
rule.
    Some commenters, including research organizations and third 
parties, expressed concern that proposed Sec.  1033.421(a)(2) might 
result in a prohibition on targeted ads, cross-selling, and data sales 
because, at least in some circumstances, they may not be traditionally 
offered as standalone products or services. A research organization and 
a third party commenter stated that the proposal might preclude third 
parties from using covered data for these purposes where they are 
traditionally a component of a product or service and are not 
standalone products or services. These commenters offered examples of 
products or services that might benefit consumers and might include 
targeted advertising or cross-selling. Some commenters, like trade 
associations for nondepositories, third parties, research institutes, 
consumer advocates, and data aggregators, asserted that proposed Sec.  
1033.421(a)(2) could result in consumer harms, such as higher prices, 
hindered choice, and others. These commenters expressed concerns about 
competition harms, like increased barriers to market entry for new 
companies who would traditionally rely on targeted advertising and 
cross-selling to generate growth, decreased innovation of new products, 
services, or business models, and increased consolidation in existing 
market players. These commenters stated that the CFPB did not account 
for the benefits to consumers through targeted advertising and cross-
selling, and overstated potential harms. For example, some of these 
commenters cited studies they characterize as showing that consumers 
consistently authorize targeted advertising when given choices, 
significantly benefit from targeted advertising, and benefit from the 
competition that targeted advertising generates within the market.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ See, e.g., J. Howard Beales & Andrew Stivers, An 
Information Economy Without Data, at 15-16 (Nov. 2022); Patrick 
Grieve, Personalized Customer Service: What It Is and How to Provide 
It, ZenDesk (Feb. 2023), https://www.zendesk.com/blog/start-providing-personalized-customer-service/; Holly Pauzer, 71% of 
Consumers Prefer Personalized Ads, Adlucent (2016), https://www.adlucent.com/resources/blog/71-of-consumers-prefer-personalized-ads/; Yan Lau, A Brief Primer on the Economics of Targeted 
Advertising, FTC 11-12 (Jan. 2020), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/brief-primer-economics-targeted-advertising/economic_issues_paper_-_economics_of_targeted_advertising.pdf; Bus. 
Wire, ICSC's Small Business Consumer Survey Reveals the Ongoing 
Importance of Small Businesses in the Lives of Consumers and 
Communities in the U.S. (May 2, 2022), https://bwnews.pr/3rZ2KF3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some trade associations and third parties stated that the proposed 
limitation on targeted advertising, cross-selling of other products and 
services, and data sales would not ensure consumers are able to consent 
to third party products or services consumers might want and would 
therefore be a restriction on consumer choice. A trade association for 
nondepositories also stated that, if a consumer consents to third party 
collection of covered data for certain uses, like targeted advertising, 
then a prohibition on that use would run afoul of the First Amendment.
    Finally, some commenters, including trade associations for 
nondepositories, a law firm, third party commenters, and data 
aggregators suggested that proposed Sec.  1033.421(a)(2) is contrary to 
the congressional intent of CFPA section 1033 to ensure consumers can 
access data to use for their own preferences. These commenters stated 
that the CFPB generally lacks authority to prescribe limitations on the 
use of covered data, especially as it relates to targeted advertising, 
cross-selling of other products and services, and data sales. These 
commenters also objected to the CFPB's rationale for these proposed 
provisions and stated that the proposed rule did not evidence reasoned 
decision making or meaningful consideration of the consequences of 
intrusion into private, consent-based consumer relationships with third 
parties. Specifically, a trade association and law firm stated that 
CFPA section 1033 provides consumers an affirmative right to access 
their financial data but does not permit the CFPB to limit a third 
party's collection, use, and retention of covered data if the consumer 
has agreed to it. These commenters also stated that Congress intended 
that representatives acting on behalf of consumers would adhere to 
principles of agency law, which they said would result in 
authorizations from consumers to third parties that would carry 
regardless of whether the consumer benefits from the authorization. 
These commenters stated that if the consumer agrees to terms of data 
access, then the third party is acting on the consumer's behalf.
Final Rule
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing Sec.  
1033.421(a)(2) with minor modifications. Final Sec.  1033.421(a)(2) 
provides that, for the purposes of the general limitation standard 
Sec.  1033.421(a)(1), the following are not part of, or reasonably 
necessary to provide, any other product or service: (i) targeted 
advertising; (ii) cross-selling of other products or services; or (iii) 
the sale of covered data. For clarity, the CFPB is removing the term 
``activities'' from the text of final Sec.  1033.421(a)(2) and 
replacing the term with ``purposes'' in that provision's heading.
    With respect to commenter concerns regarding consumer authorization 
for the purposes listed in Sec.  1033.421(a)(2), the CFPB notes that 
Sec.  1033.421(a)(2) does not prevent third parties from obtaining 
authorizations from a consumer to collect, use, and retain their 
covered data for any one of these specified purposes if offered as a 
standalone product or service. To the extent that the consumer seeks a 
product or service in the market which functions as targeted 
advertising, cross-selling of other products or services, or the sale 
of covered data, a third party could obtain a consumer's authorization 
to collect, use, and retain their covered data to provide that product 
or service to the consumer consistent with, and subject to, the terms 
of subpart D of part 1033.\102\ Collection, use, and retention of 
covered data to provide such a product or service would be subject to 
other applicable laws, including the CFPA's prohibition on unfair, 
deceptive, and abusive practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ The CFPB has previously issued guidance related to 
commingling of targeting and delivery of advertisements to 
consumers. See generally Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, Limited 
Applicability of Consumer Financial Protection Act's `Time or Space' 
Exception With Respect to Digital Marketing Providers, 87 FR 50556 
(Aug. 17, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To be a ``standalone'' product or service, it must be clear that 
the targeted advertising, cross-selling, or sale of covered data is a 
distinct product or service the consumer could obtain in the market 
without obtaining other products or services.\103\ As such, one 
provider could offer multiple products to a consumer, including 
targeted advertising, cross-selling, or sale of covered data as 
standalone products, obtain separate authorizations for consumer's data 
to be used for those

[[Page 90935]]

products or services, and provide those products or services to the 
consumer. This would be similar to a bank that may offer checking 
accounts, savings accounts, and credit cards to a consumer, even while 
allowing those services to be managed on one banking app.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ As described above related to the consumer's requested 
product or service, the CFPB does not intend to suggest a 
``standalone product or service'' would necessarily have only a 
single attribute. While many standalone products or services might 
have only one attribute, as in cases where third parties sell 
covered data, others may have more than one attribute. A third party 
might provide to consumers a standalone product or service of 
targeted advertising, which could have multiple attributes to ensure 
the consumer is receiving the product or service they would expect. 
For example, a ``standalone product'' that involves targeted 
advertising might both evaluate a consumer's data for the purpose of 
identifying lower cost credit cards for a particular consumer and 
send that consumer advertisements for such lower cost credit cards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, as described in the proposed rule, the CFPB is concerned 
that consumers do not seek in the market targeted advertising, cross-
selling of other products and services, and data sales.\104\ Commenters 
suggested that consumers can significantly benefit specifically from, 
and continue to sign up for, targeted advertising and cross-selling in 
various contexts. As described above, commenters provided some evidence 
that consumers sign up for targeted advertising and cross-selling and 
receive certain benefits from them. Other research suggests that any 
such benefits are uncertain at best and may be difficult to quantify. 
Regardless, the CFPB recognizes that consumers might continue to sign 
up for, and in some cases can benefit from, targeted advertising, 
cross-selling, and data sales. However, this does not indicate that 
consumers understand the consequences of third parties using data for 
these purposes,\105\ are the primary beneficiary of collection, use, 
and retention for these purposes,\106\ or that consumers specifically 
sought them out.\107\ Instead, this might indicate that consumers have 
little choice but to sign up for, or unknowingly or reluctantly 
acquiesce to, targeted advertising and cross-selling to receive more 
preferable or free services.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ See, e.g., Rodney John Garratt & Michael Junho Lee, 
Monetizing Privacy, at 4, Fed. Rsrv. Bank of N.Y. Staff Rep. No. 958 
(Jan. 2021), https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr958.pdf (stating that ``[m]ost of the gains from 
consumer data do not go to consumers''); Raheel A. Chaudhry & Paul 
D. Berger, Ethics in Data Collection and Advertising, 2 GPH Int'l J. 
Bus. Mgmt. 1, 5-6 (2019), http://www.gphjournal.org/index.php/bm/article/view/240/110 (stating that targeted advertising and data 
monetization allow companies to collect, use, and retain ``consumer 
data without the user being any the wiser,'' and that targeted 
advertising and data monetization elevate ``the risk involved in 
data breaches and malicious parties buying consumer data on the 
secondary data market''); Yan Lau, A Brief Primer on the Economics 
of Targeted Advertising, Bureau of Econ., Fed. Trade Comm'n, at 9-10 
(2020), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/brief-primer-economics-targeted-advertising/economic_issues_paper_-_economics_of_targeted_advertising.pdf (describing that, while 
consumers can benefit from targeted advertising, there are multiple 
consumer harms that result from targeted advertising, such as: 
consumers may underestimate the ``degree and consequence of the 
personal data collection websites carry out in exchange for 
providing free digital goods and services''; consumers may feel the 
benefits of targeted advertising do not outweigh the ``perceived 
intrusiveness of the advertising''; and consumers may experience 
harms related to data breaches or misuse of their data).
    \105\ See generally Brooke Auxier et al., Americans and Privacy: 
Concerned, Confused and Feeling Lack of Control Over Their Personal 
Information, Pew Rsch. Ctr. (Nov. 15, 2019), https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/americans-and-privacy-concerned-confused-and-feeling-lack-of-control-over-their-personal-information/ (describing findings that only ``one-in-five adults 
overall say they always (9 percent) or often (13 percent) read a 
company's privacy policy before agreeing to it'' and that 59 percent 
say ``they understand very little or nothing about'' what companies 
do with data they collect); Neil Richards & Woodrow Hartzog, The 
Pathologies of Digital Consent, 96 Wash. U.L. Rev. 1461, 1479 
(2019), https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6460&context=law_lawreview (``[F]ar too 
often, far too many people in the digital environment have little to 
no idea about what data practices or exposure that they are 
consenting to.'').
    \106\ See generally Eduardo Abraham et al., Behavioral 
Advertising and Consumer Welfare: An Empirical Investigation, SSRN 
Elec. J., at 2 (2023), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4398428 (``[L]ittle is known about the manner 
and extent to which targeted ads affect consumers' welfare. In fact, 
the relationship between a product being associated with targeted 
ads and its price, quality, or novelty . . . has not been explored. 
Some models suggest that, if consumers had to make a voluntary 
decision to provide personal information to advertisers, only those 
who benefit from it would do so, and therefore targeted advertising 
should be strictly beneficial to them.'').
    \107\ See generally Charlotte A. Tschider, Meaningful Choice: A 
History of Consent and Alternatives to the Consent Myth, 22 N.C. 
J.L. & Tech. 617, 635-37, 639 (2021) (explaining that while 
consumers might consent to certain activities presented to them, 
their consent might not reflect autonomous choice from the consumer 
or the consumer's desires).
    \108\ See April Falcon Doss, Cyber Privacy, at 54 (BenBella 
Books, Inc. 2020) (explaining that the business model of companies 
that monetize consumer data are able to exploit information 
asymmetries and bargaining power imbalances such that, even if a 
consumer has a higher risk tolerance and is willing to share more 
data for the purposes of monetization of that data, digital 
platforms offer consumers very little choice to exercise those 
preferences); Charlotte A. Tschider, Meaningful Choice: A History of 
Consent and Alternatives to the Consent Myth, 22 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 
617, 637 (2021) (positing that consumers who consent to products or 
services might struggle to understand the differences of primary 
uses from secondary uses where the two are bundled into contracts of 
adhesion, of which consumers might only want some aspects but not 
all of what they authorized).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFPB understands that it is possible for consumers to benefit 
from targeted advertising, cross-selling, and data sales and the final 
rule ensures that consumers can authorize their covered data to be 
collected, used, and retained for these purposes, with provisions to 
ensure consumers are able to make a meaningful choice to do so.\109\ 
The final rule recognizes that consumers should not have to unknowingly 
or reluctantly acquiesce to their covered data being collected, used, 
and retained for these purposes in order to receive a product or 
service they have sought in the market. As such, the CFPB affirms that, 
under the final rule, consumers can authorize their data to be 
collected, used, and retained for targeted advertising, cross-selling, 
or data sales if offered as standalone products or services--this 
authorization simply cannot be combined in one authorization for data 
access for other products or services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ See generally Alessandro Acquisti et al., Behavioral 
Advertising and Consumer Welfare, at 16 (2023), https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4398428 (``The results suggest that a search will, on 
average, make consumers who are price focused and have low search 
costs (relative to the price of the product) better off. These 
results also highlight that display advertisements may be a useful 
channel for smaller vendors to reach consumers: some of these 
vendors may seldom (if ever) appear in organic search. Such results 
highlight the complex nature of consumer welfare effects from 
targeted advertising. If search costs are sufficiently low and 
consumers are generally aware of the product categories which 
interest them, targeted ads are unlikely to improve their surplus. 
Surplus gains are even less likely to accrue to consumers if they 
need to vet the lesser known vendors that appear in display 
advertising. More than likely, this additional effort is better used 
seeking out relevant products via traditional search.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, some commenters stated that proposed Sec.  
1033.421(a)(2) was contrary to the congressional intent of CFPA section 
1033 to ensure consumers can access their own data for their own 
preferences. These commenters also stated that the proposed rule would 
otherwise result in a restriction of consumer choice. However, Sec.  
1033.421(a)(2) does not restrict consumer choice or inhibit consumers 
from accessing their data for their own preferences. Under the final 
rule, third parties can, pursuant to consumer authorization, collect, 
use, and retain covered data to provide, targeted advertising, cross-
selling of other products or services, or data sales as standalone 
products or services.
    As described above, a trade association for nondepositories argued 
that the provision related to cross-selling, targeted advertising, and 
data sales would violate the First Amendment's protections on 
commercial speech if it prohibited data to be collected, used, and 
retained by third parties for these purposes when a consumer otherwise 
consents. However, the final rule does not infringe on any First 
Amendment rights. Even assuming the final rule could be construed to 
restrain speech, it would readily survive the applicable standard of 
scrutiny for commercial speech. Under the Supreme Court's commercial 
speech framework, if the speech is not misleading and relates to lawful 
activity, the government may impose restrictions that advance a 
substantial government interest and are no more extensive than is 
necessary to serve that interest. As explained elsewhere, the final 
rule advances several substantial interests,

[[Page 90936]]

including the need for consumer control of personal financial data and 
privacy protections. The requirements set forth in the rule are also 
appropriately tailored to achieve these interests. As previously noted, 
the CFPB affirms that collection of covered data for certain uses, 
including cross-selling, targeted ads, and data sales, may be 
separately authorized as a standalone product or service. This 
regulatory structure provides the appropriate balance to ensure 
consumers are given a meaningful choice before engaging in targeted 
advertising, cross-selling, and data sales, and that they are shielded 
from signing up for purposes that they do not understand or do not 
request.
    Additionally, as described above, commenters asked for and 
suggested definitions for targeted advertising, cross-selling of other 
products or services, and data sales. For the purposes of Sec.  
1033.421(a)(2), the CFPB intends to take the position that targeted 
advertising is advertising that comprises the identification or 
selection of prospective customers or the selection or placement of 
content to affect consumer engagement, including purchase or adoption 
behavior. Cross-selling of other products and services is the 
advertising, sale, or referral of the third party's own products or 
services to the third party's existing customers. Data sales is 
selling, renting, releasing, disclosing, disseminating, making 
available, transferring, or otherwise communicating personal 
information for monetary or other valuable consideration.
Limitations on Collection of Covered Data (Sec.  1033.421(b))
    Proposed Sec.  1033.421(b) contained third party obligations 
related to collection of covered data. Under proposed Sec.  
1033.421(b), as a condition of being authorized to access covered data 
on a consumer's behalf, the third party would be required to (1) limit 
its collection of covered data, including the scope of covered data, to 
what is reasonably necessary to provide the consumer's requested 
product or service, consistent with Sec.  1033.421(a); (2) limit the 
duration of collection of covered data to the maximum durational 
period; (3) obtain a new authorization from the consumer, in a 
reasonable manner, to collect covered data beyond the maximum 
durational period; and (4) abide by certain limitations on collection, 
use, and retention of covered data beyond the maximum durational period 
if the third party does not obtain a new authorization from the 
consumer.
    The specific provisions of Sec.  1033.421(b) are discussed below.
In General (Sec.  1033.421(b)(1))
    Proposed Sec.  1033.421(b)(1) stated that, for purposes of the 
general limitation on collection, use, and retention of covered data in 
proposed Sec.  1033.421(a), collection of covered data would include 
the scope of covered data collected and the duration and frequency of 
collection of covered data.
    Some commenters, including consumer advocates, data providers, 
trade associations for data providers, and research organizations, 
stated general support for the proposed limitations on collection. Some 
commenters, including consumer advocates and third parties, suggested 
that consumers should have more control than what the proposed rule 
would have required over how long and how often third parties collect 
covered data, and that the proposed standard to limit collection might 
not adequately account for third parties' ongoing relationships with 
consumers. Other commenters, particularly data providers and third 
parties, suggested that data providers should have a role in ending 
third party access if collection exceeds the scope of the consumer's 
authorization.
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is generally finalizing 
Sec.  1033.421(b) as proposed, with one modification. The CFPB has 
determined that third parties are the commercial actors in the best 
position to understand the covered data they need to collect from the 
data provider to facilitate provision of products or services, and to 
therefore limit that collection to only what is reasonably necessary to 
provide the consumer's requested product or service. The CFPB has also 
determined that the standard to limit collection to what is reasonably 
necessary provides third parties with sufficient flexibility to account 
for the needs of the requested product or service.
    The CFPB is revising the language of proposed Sec.  1033.421(b)(1) 
to state that collection includes the scope of covered data 
``requested,'' instead of the proposed ``collected.'' This clarifies 
that, in certifying to limit the collection of covered data pursuant to 
Sec.  1033.421(a), third parties must tailor their request for covered 
data to only what is reasonably necessary to provide the consumer's 
requested product or service.
    The CFPB notes that, in some circumstances, the third party might 
receive from the data provider more data than the third party requests. 
For example, this could happen when, pursuant to Sec.  1033.211(d), the 
third party requests terms and conditions data from the data provider 
and the data provider provides more data elements than the third party 
requested, or more than is reasonably necessary to provide the 
consumer's requested product or service consistent with Sec.  
1033.421(a). Additionally, third parties could receive data after a 
consumer has revoked the third party's access to the data pursuant to 
Sec.  1033.421(h), before the data provider has processed the request. 
In circumstances where the third party receives more data than they 
request, the general limitation on use and retention in Sec.  
1033.421(a) would not allow third parties to use that data if such use 
is not reasonably necessary. Section 1033.421(a) would allow a third 
party to retain covered data for as long as reasonably necessary to 
locate and delete the data.
    Further, pursuant to the certifications related to collection in 
Sec.  1033.421(a) and (b), if a third party receives information that 
indicates the consumer may no longer expect to receive the product or 
service, the third party should confirm collection of covered data 
remains reasonably necessary.
Maximum Duration (Sec.  1033.421(b)(2))
    Under proposed Sec.  1033.421(b)(2), third parties would be 
required to certify to limit the duration of collection of covered data 
to a maximum period of one year after the consumer's most recent 
authorization. The proposed rule described this as the maximum 
durational limit.
    Regarding the maximum durational limit, the proposed rule noted 
that some products or services, like bill pay, overdraft prevention, or 
personal financial management, require long-term access. For such 
products or services, the proposed rule stated that the general 
limitation standard may not be sufficient to ensure that third parties 
act on behalf of consumers when collecting data longer term. The 
proposed rule stated that consumer needs or expectations may change in 
ways that may not be apparent to the third party, as could happen when 
a consumer stops using a product or service and forgets that they 
authorized third party data access. The proposed rule stated that, in 
other cases, consumers may have attempted to end third party access 
without actually doing so, such as when a consumer deletes an 
application from a device with the intent of stopping data collection, 
use and retention. At the same time, the proposed rule also 
acknowledged that there are other cases where consumers request 
products or

[[Page 90937]]

services that require long-term data collection and want to authorize 
ongoing third party data access. In those cases, the CFPB preliminarily 
determined that it would frustrate consumer intent and burden third 
parties to terminate third party access or require frequent 
reauthorizations. The proposed rule stated that a maximum durational 
limitation would provide a helpful backstop on the duration of third 
party authorization for these consumers.
    Comments were mixed between supporting the proposed provision and 
recommending changes. Commenters that supported a maximum durational 
limitation, mostly banks, credit unions, community banks, trade 
associations for data providers, and research institutes, stated that 
such a limit promotes consumer control by requiring third parties to 
seek periodic reauthorization. Commenters that were critical of the 
proposal to impose a maximum durational period, mostly third parties, 
trade associations for third parties, and consumer advocates, stated 
that, if implemented, a maximum duration requirement would ultimately 
result in consumer harms, like: increased and unhelpful friction 
because of required reauthorization; disruption of valuable products 
and services that require ongoing collection, use, and retention in 
cases where consumers do not reauthorize; and disruption to the user 
experience if consumers utilize a product or service continually but 
must still reauthorize.
    Commenters who supported a one-year maximum duration limitation 
commended the provision for reducing friction as compared to other 
privacy regimes that require shorter durational periods and therefore 
increased requests for reauthorization. In contrast, a trade 
association for third parties stated the CFPB did not provide adequate 
support for the proposed one-year maximum durational period and would 
not be consistent with the consumer's consent for the third party to 
continually collect their data. A data aggregator suggested amending 
the maximum durational period to 13 months, rather than 12, to better 
account for products and services that may have a slightly longer cycle 
of relevance for consumers, like tax preparation software. Further, 
various third parties and trade associations for nondepository 
commenters suggested the CFPB account for payments products or services 
through more narrow or more flexible durational limits, including by 
incorporating flexibilities based on the consumer's use of the product 
or service. These commenters suggested consumer authorization should 
last as long as consumers actively use the product or service, or 
suggested other activity-based flexibilities or restrictions. Finally, 
a trade association for community banks stated that the final rule 
should make clear that the general limitation standard of reasonable 
necessity would mean many short-term products and services would end 
before the maximum durational period ends.
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing in Sec.  
1033.421(b)(2) a maximum durational limit of one year after the 
consumer's most recent authorization. This approach protects consumers 
by helping prevent unwanted, long term data collection, and also 
ensures consumers are able to periodically revisit the authorizations 
they have provided to third parties and ensure third party data access 
reflects consumers' wishes. Specifically, the one-year durational limit 
provides a helpful backstop to consumers who sign up for products or 
services that include ongoing data collection. For these reasons, the 
CFPB declines to allow for authorizations longer than 12 months when a 
consumer is actively using a product or service, as requested by some 
commenters. While, as described above, some commenters raised concerns 
about added friction for consumers related to a maximum durational 
limit, some of this friction is a necessary and helpful aspect of the 
consumer's relationship with the authorized third parties, as it 
provides consumers opportunities to carefully consider their choices. 
The maximum durational limit and the general obligation to limit 
collection to what is reasonably necessary to provide the consumers' 
requested product or service account for the wide variety of products 
or services the consumer might seek. For products or services that 
necessitate shorter durations of collection, like traditional 
underwriting and identity verification, the general data limitation 
standard will result in collection of covered data for a shorter period 
than one year. And, as noted above and in the proposed rule, consumers 
benefit from a one-year maximum durational period in cases where the 
general limitation standard may not be sufficient to ensure that third 
parties act on behalf of consumers when collecting data longer term.
Reauthorization After Maximum Duration (Sec.  1033.421(b)(3))
    Under proposed Sec.  1033.421(b)(3), the third party would certify 
that, to collect covered data beyond the one-year maximum durational 
period, the third party would obtain a new authorization from the 
consumer no later than the anniversary of the most recent authorization 
from the consumer. Under the proposed rule, the third party would be 
permitted to ask the consumer for a new authorization in a reasonable 
manner. The proposed rule stated that indicia that a new authorization 
request would be reasonable would include its conformance to a 
qualified industry standard.
    The proposed rule stated that consumers would benefit from the 
combination of a maximum durational limit of one year and from the 
control that reauthorization requirements might provide. The proposed 
rule further stated that the CFPB preliminarily determined that third 
parties might need to seek new authorizations multiple times or 
otherwise explain to consumers why they are seeking new authorizations, 
but that this might unnecessarily burden consumers if they receive too 
many requests, or requests for products or services they no longer 
want. The proposed rule stated that the CFPB sought to strike a balance 
between these competing considerations. The proposed rule also 
acknowledged that additional guidelines regarding reauthorization 
requests might facilitate compliance. As such, the proposed rule stated 
that indicia that a new authorization request is reasonable include its 
conformance with a qualified industry standard.
    Some commenters--including banks, trade associations for credit 
unions, and third parties--offered support for the proposed 
reauthorization provision, stating that consumers often forget about 
their connections and could benefit from opportunities to reauthorize. 
Some data aggregators, trade associations for banks, consumer 
advocates, and research organizations did not clearly oppose the 
proposed rule but offered narrow critiques or suggested changes, 
discussed below.
    Some trade associations for third parties and data aggregators 
expressed concern that consumers would not provide a new authorization 
at the end of a maximum duration limit when they might otherwise want 
their authorizations to continue, which could result in harm to 
consumers. For example, one third party suggested that if a consumer 
never reauthorizes, the consumer might be directly harmed by the cut-
off of the maximum durational period before the consumer accrues the 
benefits of long-term data collection.

[[Page 90938]]

    Commenters' suggested modifications, clarifications, or additions 
to the implementation of reauthorization include: specify in the rule 
that a consumer's most recent authorization includes when a consumer 
requests a third party to refresh their data, or every time a payment 
goes through; finalize more specific limitations for requesting 
reauthorization, including limiting pop-ups and notices, the number of 
requests, or requests that could be threatening, misleading, or 
otherwise negatively impact consumers; allow the consumer to provide 
more streamlined reauthorizations as compared the initial 
authorization, or fewer reauthorization for certain products or 
services with which consumers regularly interact, like peer-to-peer or 
periodic payment products; allow flexibility for reasonable 
reauthorization methods, including directly to consumers via electronic 
means; allow third parties to simply notify the consumer of ongoing 
collection, use, and retention; and clarify the reasonable manner 
requirement related to reauthorization.
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing Sec.  
1033.421(b)(3) as proposed with a terminology change to conform to the 
final rule's use of the term ``consensus standard.'' Specifically, 
final Sec.  1033.421(b)(3) provides that, to collect covered data 
beyond the one-year maximum period described in Sec.  1033.421(b)(2), 
the third party will obtain a new authorization from the consumer 
pursuant to Sec.  1033.401 no later than the anniversary of the most 
recent authorization from the consumer. Final Sec.  1033.421(b)(3) 
further provides that the third party is permitted to ask the consumer 
for a new authorization pursuant to Sec.  1033.401 in a reasonable 
manner. Final Sec.  1033.421(b)(3) further provides that indicia that a 
new authorization request is reasonable include its conformance to a 
consensus standard.
    The CFPB acknowledges that this approach may result in some 
increased friction for consumers, but it will also allow consumers to 
periodically confirm their previous choices, including that they 
continue to want the third party to access their data for the requested 
product or service. Commenters appeared to assume that consumers 
generally will not reauthorize at the end of one year, but did not 
provide evidence that consumers, on the whole, will not reauthorize 
after a maximum duration period of one year, at least in circumstances 
in which they want data access to continue. As such, after considering 
this feedback, the CFPB is not making changes to the proposed 
reauthorization requirement.
    Some commenters suggested the final rule should allow third parties 
to provide streamlined reauthorization requests to consumers, including 
suggesting that facilitated payments could serve as periodic 
reauthorizations for consumers. The CFPB has determined that consumers 
could benefit significantly from the authorization procedures as 
described in Sec.  1033.401, including the authorization disclosure, 
and that streamlined reauthorization procedures would not effectively 
ensure consumers remain informed and in appropriate control of data 
access. The CFPB is thus not adopting commenters' suggested 
modifications to streamline reauthorization requests.
Effects of Maximum Duration (Sec.  1033.421(b)(4))
    Proposed Sec.  1033.421(b)(4) would have required the third party 
to certify that, if a consumer does not provide a new authorization 
before the maximum durational periods, the third party would (1) no 
longer collect covered data pursuant to the most recent authorization, 
and (2) no longer use or retain covered data that was previously 
collected pursuant to the most recent authorization unless use or 
retention of that covered data remains reasonably necessary to provide 
the consumer's requested product or service under proposed Sec.  
1033.421(a). The CFPB is finalizing these provisions, without 
substantive change, in Sec.  1033.421(i), discussed below. Comments 
regarding proposed Sec.  1033.421(b)(4) are discussed in detail below 
related to Sec.  1033.421(i).
Limitations on Use of Covered Data (Sec.  1033.421(c))
Proposed Rule
    As discussed above, the CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.421(a) that, to 
be authorized to access covered data, a third party must certify to 
using covered data only as reasonably necessary to provide the 
consumer's requested product or service. Preamble to the proposed rule 
explained that use of covered data that is not reasonably necessary to 
provide the consumer's requested product or service would be 
``secondary use,'' and would not be permitted as part of the third 
party's authorization to access the consumer's covered data. The 
proposed rule specified in Sec.  1033.421(c) that, in addition to 
limiting the third party's own use of covered data, third parties would 
not be able to provide covered data to other third parties unless doing 
so would be reasonably necessary to provide the consumer's requested 
product or service.
    Further, for clarity, proposed Sec.  1033.421(c) provided the 
following examples of uses of covered data that would be permitted as 
reasonably necessary under proposed Sec.  1033.421(a): (1) uses that 
are specifically required under other provisions of law, including to 
comply with a properly authorized subpoena or summons or to respond to 
a judicial process or government regulatory authority; (2) uses that 
are reasonably necessary to protect against or prevent actual or 
potential fraud, unauthorized transactions, claims, or other liability; 
and (3) servicing or processing the product or service the consumer 
requested. The proposed rule stated that these examples would provide 
third parties with additional clarity on how the limitation standard 
would apply with respect to certain business activities. The CFPB 
sought feedback on whether it should include in the final rule other 
examples of business activities that are reasonably necessary to 
provide consumer requested products or services.
    The proposed rule also sought feedback on whether the final rule 
should permit third parties to solicit consumers' opt-in consent to 
some secondary uses of consumer data to provide flexibility to third 
parties while maintaining important consumer protections. For example, 
the proposed rule sought feedback on whether the final rule should 
permit third parties to solicit consumers' opt-in consent to secondary 
uses as part of a third party's authorization to access covered data, 
while requiring third parties to certify not to use covered data for 
certain higher-risk secondary uses. The proposed rule also sought 
feedback on whether the final rule should permit third parties to 
solicit a consumer's opt-in consent to engage in secondary uses with 
de-identified data, and if so, what de-identification standard the rule 
should provide. The proposed rule sought feedback on how any opt-in 
approach could be structured to ensure that consumers are providing 
express informed consent to any secondary data uses, and whether the 
proposed authorization disclosure would be an appropriate vehicle for 
soliciting granular consumer choices about data use, such as through a 
secondary use opt-in mechanism. Finally, the proposed rule sought 
feedback on how opt-in mechanisms could be implemented to prevent third 
parties from using ``dark patterns'' or deceptive practices aimed at 
soliciting consumer consent.

[[Page 90939]]

Comments Received
    Commenter feedback on the proposed limitation on use was varied. 
Regarding the examples in proposed Sec.  1033.421(c), many commenters, 
including third parties and third party trade associations, privacy 
organizations, Members of Congress, and data aggregators, requested 
that the CFPB specify additional uses that would be permissible under 
the final rule. Other examples of additional uses that commenters 
requested the CFPB specify in the final rule included product 
improvement, new product development, prevention of crime or 
illegality, offering beneficial products or services to consumers, 
supplemental primary uses, reporting of data, and internal and external 
research. Some research institutes, a third party, and a trade 
association raised concerns about the proposed examples of reasonably 
necessary uses set forth in proposed Sec.  1033.421(c), and 
specifically raised concerns that the example for servicing or 
processing the consumer's requested product or service was too narrow. 
These commenters suggested additions that would broaden that example, 
like ``assessing the consumer's eligibility for or delivering, 
servicing, or processing the product or service the consumer 
requested,'' allowing third parties to service or process products or 
services on which the consumer's requested product or service relies, 
or providing more elaboration or clarification about the meaning of 
servicing or processing.
    Regarding the proposed limitation on secondary uses, a wide range 
of commenters, including data providers, consumer groups, and research 
organizations, were generally supportive of strong restrictions on 
secondary use, but most commenters asserted that the proposed secondary 
use limitation would be overly restrictive. Many commenters stated that 
a prohibition on secondary use, without modification and limited 
exceptions, would negatively affect product innovation, overly restrict 
consumer choices for potentially beneficial products, and put third 
parties at a significant competitive disadvantage to data providers 
that are unrestricted by the limitation. Some of these commenters 
suggested alternative approaches, including categories of permissible 
uses that are not primary or secondary. Some third parties, Members of 
Congress, and research institutes raised concerns about how a strict 
limitation on secondary uses might impact beneficial products or 
services for consumers, like cash-flow underwriting. Some third party 
commenters requested that the final rule permit more expansive uses 
related to fraud prevention. And many third parties asserted that the 
proposed secondary use restrictions would harm consumers and raise 
costs or reduce revenues for third parties. They stated that such 
restrictions would reduce competition and innovation, limit their 
ability to detect and prevent fraud, and prevent third parties from 
improving their products and services. Some commenters asserted that 
the prohibition on secondary use would be an outlier among existing 
privacy regimes. A few third party commenters recommended that the 
final rule allow uses that are also permitted by the GLBA and 
Regulation P because, these commenters claimed, different use 
limitations would unfairly disadvantage third parties and confuse 
consumers.
    Commenters suggested a range of revisions to address these concerns 
in the final rule, including that the CFPB permit some secondary uses, 
like those listed above, and should more strictly prohibit some 
specific uses. For example, some commenters, like data providers and 
trade associations for data providers, stated that the CFPB should 
specifically prohibit certain uses, like uses of data for reverse 
engineering of proprietary algorithms.
    Some commenters, including third parties, third party trade 
associations, and some privacy organizations, advocated for the final 
rule to permit consumers to opt into secondary data uses. These 
commenters stated that opt-in consents would benefit consumers and 
could increase consumer control over the uses of their data. Some of 
these commenters identified certain high-risk uses to which consumers 
should not be permitted to opt in. For example, consumer advocates and 
trade associations stated that certain types of loans that have 
resulted in enforcement actions, targeted marketing for predatory 
products, uses of wealth indicators that result in discriminatory 
algorithms, and behavioral insights derived from location, among 
others, are high risk uses that should not be permitted under the final 
rule, even through opt-in consent. And one trade association for data 
providers also stated that financial institutions, when acting as third 
parties, should be permitted to solicit opt-ins from consumers for some 
secondary uses of covered data, because such institutions must adhere 
to regulations to maintain sensitive data.
    Other commenters, including third parties, data aggregators, trade 
associations, and research institutes, offered support for an opt-out 
option for consumers, citing examples from other privacy regimes that 
rely on opt-out mechanisms. These commenters stated that third parties 
should permit consumers to opt out of secondary uses that would be 
allowed in certain contexts, like when compatible with the product or 
service or through streamlined consent frameworks that benefit 
consumers. A data aggregator provided an example of a third party 
cross-selling a savings account to a consumer who already has a 
checking account with the third party, and stated that consumers should 
be able to opt out from these kinds of secondary uses.
    In contrast, some commenters, including research institutes and 
third parties, expressed caution about an opt-in or opt-out approach. 
For example, a research institute stated that consumers presented with 
granular choice options would experience choice overload and decision 
paralysis and elect not to proceed with a transaction.\110\ A third 
party stated that authorizations for any secondary uses should include 
enhanced disclosure requirements and should prohibit other parties from 
additional secondary uses, and suggested that these kinds of 
protections are not compatible with opt-in methods. A research 
institute stated that evidence shows opt-in consents result in 
significantly reduced participation rates.\111\ Some commenters 
recommended that the final rule address concerns about the secondary 
use proposal being overly restrictive through additional clarifications 
of reasonably necessary uses and exceptions for certain secondary uses. 
Further, commenters stated that there might be significant limits to 
the benefits of opt-in approaches. For example, as described in more 
detail below, a group of academic researchers and consumer advocates 
stated their concerns that employing opt-ins for

[[Page 90940]]

research might significantly degrade the quality of the data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ See generally Alexander Chernev et al., Choice Overload: A 
Conceptual Review and Meta Analysis (2015); Choice Overload, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265170803_Choice_Overload_A_Conceptual_Review_and_Meta-Analysis.
    \111\ See generally Joseph W. Sakshaug et al., Evaluating Active 
(Opt-In) and Passive (Opt-Out) Consent Bias in the Transfer of 
Federal Contact Data to a Third-Party Survey Agency, 4 (3) J. Survey 
Stats. & Methodology, at 382-416 (Sept. 2016), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307625870_Evaluating_Active_Opt-In_and_Passive_Opt-Out_Consent_Bias_in_the_Transfer_of_Federal_Contact_Data_to_a_Third-Party_Survey_Agency; and Yvonne de Man, Ph.D. et al., Opt-In and 
Opt-Out Consent Procedures for the Reuse of Routinely Recorded 
Health Data in Scientific Research and Their Consequences for 
Consent Rate and Consent Bias: Systematic Review, J. Med. Internet 
Rsch. (Feb. 2023), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10015347/ PMC10015347/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many commenters addressed the use of de-identified data by third 
parties. Numerous commenters, including research organizations, 
consumer advocates, and third parties, supported allowing third parties 
to use de-identified data for secondary purposes. These commenters 
stated that de-identified data enables a variety of uses that benefit 
consumers. For example, commenters said that de-identified data allows 
businesses to develop new products and services, improve existing 
products and services, and improve account security and fraud 
prevention. Commenters also said that de-identified data allows for 
research that serves the public interest. For example, a third party 
and a data aggregator commenter said that third parties had shared de-
identified data with government agencies to improve policymaking. A 
research institute commenter stated that the CFPB's Consumer Credit 
Panel and credit card agreement database use de-identified data. 
However, a consumer advocate commenter stated that even de-identified 
data could be exploited for commercial ends like marketing, and 
therefore recommended limiting the use of de-identified data to 
research purposes.
    Some commenters addressed the consent standard that should apply to 
uses of de-identified data. Academic, research institute, and consumer 
advocate commenters stated that opt-in consent would impair the value 
of any de-identified data used for research purposes. These commenters 
stated that frequent opt-in requests could overwhelm consumers and that 
consumers who opt in to sharing their data are non-representative of 
the general population, which undermines the validity of any research 
based on such consumers. However, a government commenter and a consumer 
advocate commenter said that opt-out frameworks have been shown to 
minimize sample biases and preserve the utility of data in other 
research contexts. A data provider commenter said that opt-in consent 
should be required for any use of de-identified data.
    Some third party commenters were concerned about what they 
described as anticompetitive effects of the proposed limitation on 
using de-identified data. For example, a research institute and several 
third party commenters said that new market entrants need access to de-
identified data to train machine learning models or otherwise ensure 
that their products function properly. Third party commenters also said 
that the proposed rule would limit their use of covered data in ways 
that existing law does not limit data providers' use of the same data. 
One third party commenter stated that it was not fair that a bank could 
use de-identified data for nearly any purpose if obtained directly from 
a customer, but a third party could not use the same data for any 
secondary purposes if obtained under the rule as proposed.
    Commenters also stated that allowing third parties to use de-
identified data would also create consistency between the final rule to 
implement CFPA section 1033 and various State, Federal, and 
international privacy regimes. One research institute commenter stated 
that GLBA and FCRA allow greater flexibility in using de-identified 
data. Several commenters believed that U.S. businesses would face a 
competitive disadvantage if the final rule were more restrictive than 
the E.U. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
    However, a few data providers and trade associations for data 
providers opposed allowing third parties to use de-identified data for 
secondary purposes. Two bank commenters asserted that de-identified 
data could be re-identified, which would invade consumer privacy. In 
contrast, a research institute commenter stated that most high-profile 
examples of re-identification involved data that was never properly de-
identified initially. This commenter also said that risks of re-
identification were low if the data was limited to internal use and not 
shared with other third parties.
Final Rule
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing Sec.  
1033.421(c) with an additional example of reasonably necessary uses. 
Final Sec.  1033.421(c) states that use of covered data for purposes of 
Sec.  1033.421(a) includes both the third party's own use of covered 
data and provision of covered data by that third party to other third 
parties. Final Sec.  1033.421(c) further states that examples of uses 
of covered data that are permitted under Sec.  1033.421(a) include: 
uses that are specifically required under other provisions of law, 
including to comply with a properly authorized subpoena or summons or 
to respond to a judicial process or government regulatory authority; 
uses that are reasonably necessary to protect against or prevent actual 
or potential fraud, unauthorized transactions, claims, or other 
liability; servicing or processing the product or service the consumer 
requested; and uses that are reasonably necessary to improve the 
product or service the consumer requested. The CFPB has determined 
that, generally, consumers expect covered data might be used for these 
purposes and that third parties will benefit from additional clarity, 
provided by these examples, on uses that are reasonably necessary to 
provide the consumer's requested product or service under the standard 
in Sec.  1033.421(a). The examples in Sec.  1033.421(c) are 
illustrative and are not comprehensive of uses of covered data that 
will be reasonably necessary under the general limitation standard.
    The CFPB is aware that third parties might need to use covered data 
to comply with legal requirements or to protect against fraud, 
unauthorized transactions, and similar purposes. The final rule is not 
intended to restrict uses of covered data that effect compliance with 
applicable laws, like anti-money laundering laws or other applicable 
rules or regulations, or to block criminal law enforcement activity. 
For example, in many cases, it would be reasonably necessary for third 
parties to use basic account verification information to confirm that 
the consumer is authorizing information from an account that does in 
fact belong to that particular consumer. One third party commenter 
explained that third parties might use covered data to determine the 
likelihood of consumers' future payments failing by monitoring past 
instances of consumers freezing their accounts or inability to transfer 
funds, describing those uses of data as being for fraud prevention 
purposes. The CFPB cautions that the example in Sec.  1033.421(c)(2) is 
limited to uses to protect against or prevent actual or potential 
fraud, unauthorized transactions, claims, or other liability if such 
uses are reasonably necessary. The examples in Sec.  1033.421(c) do not 
expand the scope the general limitation standard in Sec.  1033.421(a) 
and, to be permissible, the uses described in the examples in Sec.  
1033.421(c) must be reasonably necessary in a given context.
    After considering comments, the CFPB is finalizing in Sec.  
1033.421(c) an additional example of permitted uses of covered data: 
uses that are reasonably necessary to allow for improvement of the 
consumer's requested product or service. The CFPB agrees with 
commenters that the reasonably necessary standard of Sec.  1033.421(a) 
would generally permit third parties to use covered data to improve the 
requested product or service. Generally, consumers expect that products 
or services they have requested that rely on consumer-permissioned data 
will be improved over time and, as such, the CFPB is finalizing this 
additional

[[Page 90941]]

example in Sec.  1033.421(c)(4) to provide clarity, which will assist 
third parties providing products and services that consumers request.
    The CFPB considered commenters' suggestions to add other examples 
of uses that are permissible under the general standard in Sec.  
1033.421(a) but declines to do at this time. The CFPB believes the 
examples in the final rule provide sufficient guidance to third parties 
on uses that are permissible as reasonably necessary to provide the 
consumer's requested product or service. The examples provided in the 
final rule are non-exhaustive, and other uses are permissible as 
reasonably necessary to provide the consumer's requested product or 
service.
    The CFPB considered comments suggesting additional prohibitions 
related to certain uses, like uses of data for reverse engineering of 
proprietary algorithms, price discovery in capital markets, or 
behavioral monitoring and algorithm development. As stated in the 
proposed rule, uses that are not reasonably necessary to provide the 
consumer's requested product or service are secondary uses, and are not 
permitted as part of the third party's authorization to access the 
consumer's covered data for purposes of providing that product or 
service. Many of commenters' suggested additions would generally be 
considered secondary uses in as much as they would not be reasonably 
necessary to provide the consumer's requested product or service.\112\ 
And other uses of covered data for the purposes of targeted 
advertising, cross-selling of other products or services, and data 
sales are sufficiently limited by the requirement in Sec.  
1033.421(a)(2) that those purposes are not part of, or reasonably 
necessary for, any other product or service and therefore must be 
offered as a standalone product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ With respect to the comment suggesting the CFPB prohibit 
uses of data for reverse engineering of proprietary algorithms, the 
CFPB expects that such uses would not be reasonably necessary for a 
consumer's requested product or service. The CFPB will closely 
monitor the market to determine whether third parties are using 
covered data for these purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFPB considered additional flexibilities, like providing 
consumers an opt-in to certain secondary uses or permitting secondary 
uses through the use of de-identified data. The CFPB agrees with 
commenters who described opt-in, or opt-out, approaches as not 
sufficiently protective to consumers. The CFPB declines to allow third 
parties, including financial institutions acting as third parties under 
this rule, to solicit opt-in or opt-out consents from consumers to use 
covered data obtained pursuant to consumer authorization for secondary 
uses. The CFPB is concerned that consumers might not receive adequate 
information through granular choice mechanisms that would result in 
meaningful consent.\113\ The CFPB is also concerned that if offered too 
many opt-in choices in the course of a single authorization process, 
consumers might experience decision fatigue or choice paralysis, and 
therefore might agree to terms they have not considered or instead 
might not complete authorization.\114\ The CFPB also agrees with 
commenters' concerns regarding opt-in or other granular choice options 
for consumers, particularly related to de-identified data, as these 
choices might result in selection bias issues that make the use of the 
data consumers opted into sharing unhelpful for research purposes. 
Additionally, the CFPB is concerned that when consumers experience 
decision fatigue or choice paralysis, an opt-in or opt-out approach 
might result in greater data sharing than they would choose if in a 
position to make a considered choice. Generally, the authorization 
procedures pursuant to Sec.  1033.401 are designed to ensure both that 
consumers understand the scope of a requested product or service and 
that third parties do not impermissibly expand the scope of their 
collection, use, and retention beyond what is reasonably necessary to 
provide that product or service. In addition, the rule does not prevent 
third parties from offering consumers more than one product by means of 
additional, separate authorizations that comply with subpart D. The 
CFPB determines that separate authorizations pursuant to the procedures 
in Sec.  1033.401 will afford consumers with more meaningful consent to 
data access than consumers would have through traditional opt-in 
requests, which the CFPB understands to combine requests for data 
access for a product or service the consumer is seeking with requests 
for consumer consent for data access for additional purposes. Such 
combined requests might not allow consumers to make considered choices 
to the same degree as separate authorizations, and therefore the 
procedures in Sec.  1033.401 will provide consumers more control over 
their data access authorizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ See Neil Richards & Woodrow Hartzog, The Pathologies of 
Digital Consent, 96 Wash. U.L. Rev. 1461, 1479-1486 (2019), https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6460&context=law_lawreview (describing 
numerous ways in which a consumer might consent to choice options 
without understanding what they are authorizing); Woodrow Hartzog & 
Neil Richards, Privacy's Constitutional Moment and the Limits of 
Data Protection, 61 B.C. L. Rev. 1687, 1734 (2020) (stating that 
even when the consumer is functioning under ideal circumstances when 
giving consent, consumers' ability to give informed and meaningful 
consent is finite and cannot scale to all the privacy choices a 
consumer must make).
    \114\ See Neil Richards & Woodrow Hartzog, The Pathologies of 
Digital Consent, 96 Wash. U.L. Rev. 1461, 1484, 1486 (2019), https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6460&context=law_lawreview (describing how a 
consumer might experience decision fatigue if presented with detail 
to provide sufficient information to make granular choices).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time, the CFPB is not including a provision that would 
allow third parties to use de-identified data for purposes that are not 
reasonably necessary to provide the consumer's requested product or 
service. As discussed with regard to the general limitation standard in 
final Sec.  1033.421(a), limiting third parties to using covered data 
only as reasonably necessary for the provision of the product or 
service that the consumer requested ensures that consumers understand 
the scope of their authorization and retain control over their data. 
The CFPB is concerned, based on the current rulemaking record, that an 
exception to the secondary use prohibition for de-identified data would 
be inconsistent with the kind of meaningful consumer control that the 
final rule seeks to achieve, and might enable third parties to offer 
products and services that are primarily designed to accumulate large 
amounts of de-identified consumer data. Additionally, the CFPB notes 
that, as with identifiable covered data, the final rule does not 
prohibit third parties from using de-identified data as reasonably 
necessary to provide the consumer's requested product or service, or 
from seeking a separate authorization to use de-identified data for 
other purposes that the consumer may choose. Indeed, to the extent that 
covered data can be de-identified and still used to provide the product 
or service, the CFPB expects that third parties may take that step 
because it will provide a better means of safeguarding data.
    Importantly, many of the beneficial purposes for which commenters 
seek to use de-identified data typically would not be secondary uses 
under the general limitation standard provided in Sec.  1033.421(a). 
For example, Sec.  1033.421(c) includes as an example that covered 
data--whether identifiable or de-identified--could be used as 
reasonably necessary to prevent fraud, service or process the 
consumer's requested product or service, and to improve the consumer's 
requested product or service. These examples of uses that are 
reasonably necessary to

[[Page 90942]]

provide the consumer's requested product or service pursuant to Sec.  
1033.421(a) generally address the data uses described by commenters. 
For example, with appropriate safeguards pursuant to their third party 
obligations, third parties are generally permitted to use data, 
including de-identified data, to train a fraud detection algorithm or 
to improve the budgeting recommendation attribute of a personal 
financial management service.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ Additionally, as described elsewhere, the general standard 
to retain covered data as reasonably necessary would allow third 
parties to retain covered data used for these purposes for as long 
as reasonably necessary to locate the data and delete it. The CFPB 
is aware that it could be practically infeasible for third parties 
to delete data in certain circumstances, and as such, it would be 
consistent with the general limitation standard for the third 
parties to retain the data. In one such circumstance, for example, 
it might be practically infeasible for a third party using covered 
data in fraud prevention and product improvement models to extract 
from those models data no longer connected to a consumer who 
requests revocation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFPB acknowledges commenters' representations regarding the 
value of de-identified data for research purposes. Indeed, the CFPB 
uses de-identified data itself for research and market monitoring. But 
the use limitations in Sec.  1033.421(a) and (c) operate in a 
particular context, where it is necessary to ensure that third parties 
that represent that they are acting on a specific consumer's behalf are 
actually doing so. Importantly, nothing prohibits a third party from 
seeking the consumer's separate authorization to use de-identified data 
for research purposes if that purpose is properly presented as an 
authorization for data access for a standalone product or service. 
Nonetheless, the CFPB recognizes that public interest research may 
present unique considerations not developed in the current rulemaking 
record. Accordingly, the CFPB will consider whether a follow-on 
rulemaking would be appropriate to allow for public interest research 
uses of de-identified data outside of the general standard finalized in 
this rule.
    The CFPB disagrees with commenters' assertions that the 
restrictions on secondary use would harm competition and therefore 
consumers by overly limiting potentially beneficial data uses. Under 
the final rule, third parties can use covered data as reasonably 
necessary to provide consumer-requested products and services, 
including uses that are reasonably necessary to improve those products 
and services. The CFPB expects that this will result in robust 
competition with respect to consumer-requested products and services. 
Further, the CFPB notes that the final rule does not restrict a third 
party's ability to obtain or use data in other ways unrelated to the 
final rule's data-access procedures, nor does the final rule prevent 
third parties from obtaining authorization from consumers to use 
covered data for additional products and services, including for 
research purposes. In addition, to the extent it is reasonably 
necessary to provide the consumer's requested product or service, third 
parties may use covered data as one input to the generation of new data 
that is not subject to the requirements of subpart D, including the 
limitations on secondary use (although other State and Federal laws may 
impose applicable restrictions).
    For these same reasons, the CFPB also disagrees with comments 
suggesting that the rule, including not adopting the GLBA's privacy 
standard, creates an illogical or unfair distinction between data 
providers and third parties. Both data providers and third parties may 
use data that result from direct consumer relationships without 
adhering to the general limitation standard in Sec.  1033.421(a), such 
as by using it as permitted under the GLBA and Regulation P, to the 
extent applicable. The final rule also does not treat covered data 
providers differently than other third parties when they act as 
authorized third parties themselves--while they may use the data they 
generate in the course of providing their products or services in any 
manner allowable by law, they are still subject to the prohibition on 
secondary uses when accessing data from other data providers pursuant 
to the rule's procedures. The CFPB considers the final rule's approach 
to the use of generated data to be straightforward, but to the extent 
parties seek any additional guidance, the CFPB may publish responsive 
guidance as appropriate.
Accuracy (Sec.  1033.421(d))
    Proposed Sec.  1033.421(d) would have required third parties to 
establish and maintain written policies and procedures that are 
reasonably designed to ensure that covered data are accurately received 
from a data provider and accurately provided to another third party, if 
applicable. Under the proposed rule, a third party would have 
flexibility to determine its policies and procedures in light of the 
size, nature, and complexity of its activities, but the third party 
would be required to periodically review its policies and procedures 
and update them as appropriate to ensure their continued effectiveness. 
The proposed rule provided two examples of elements in Sec.  
1033.421(d)(3) that third parties would have been required to consider 
when developing their policies and procedures regarding accuracy: (1) 
accepting covered data in the format required by the standards for 
developer interfaces in Sec.  1033.311(b) and (2) addressing 
information provided by a consumer, data provider, or another third 
party regarding inaccuracies in the covered data. Finally, the proposed 
rule stated that indicia that a third party's policies and procedures 
are reasonable would include whether the policies and procedures 
conform to a qualified industry standard regarding accuracy.
    The CFPB explained that proposed Sec.  1033.421(d) would limit the 
scope of a third party's required policies and procedures to the 
accuracy of transmission--that is, receiving covered data from a data 
provider and, if applicable, subsequently providing it to another third 
party. The CFPB provided several reasons for limiting this scope. 
First, existing Federal law already protects consumers against some of 
the most harmful inaccuracies in the use of financial data.\116\ 
Second, the CFPB noted that most SBREFA comments addressing accuracy 
focused on transmission of data from data providers to third parties as 
the source of accuracy issues. In adopting a similar focus, proposed 
Sec.  1033.421(d) reflected this feedback. Finally, the CFPB explained 
many third parties are small entities, and accuracy requirements 
covering all aspects of the collection, use, and provision of consumer 
data might be overly burdensome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ For example, Regulation E protects consumers against 
unauthorized electronic fund transfers and other errors, and 
Regulation Z protects consumers against certain billing and 
servicing errors. See 12 CFR part 1005; 12 CFR part 1026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFPB sought comment on whether any additional elements bearing 
on the reasonableness of a third party's policies and procedures 
regarding accuracy should be included.
    One Member of Congress expressed support for the proposed accuracy 
requirements. This commenter stated that inaccuracies would limit the 
ability of covered data to serve consumers and the financial system. On 
the other hand, some commenters opposed the inclusion of certain 
requirements. Some commenters believed that industry standards would be 
poorly suited to accuracy requirements. For example, a bank trade 
association stated that standardizing accuracy across the diverse 
universe of third parties may not be possible, given the broad array of 
interests.
    Additionally, while not opposing the proposed requirement, a number 
of data provider and data provider trade association commenters 
recommended

[[Page 90943]]

that the final rule do more to account for the fact that most third 
parties will receive data from data aggregators using proprietary 
formats rather than directly from data providers. Specifically, a few 
commenters recommended that the CFPB either prescribe a standardized 
format or remove the provision requiring third parties to consider 
accepting data in the format required for data providers' developer 
interfaces. One research organization commented that the CFPB might 
want to more clearly distinguish the obligations of third party data 
recipients and third party data aggregators.
    Further, some third party commenters and one consumer advocate 
group commenter recommended the final rule contain a more robust 
dispute process. In particular, the consumer advocate group recommended 
a dispute process similar to that provided under the FCRA, wherein the 
consumer can dispute inaccuracies and require that a reasonable 
investigation is conducted.
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing Sec.  
1033.421(d) as proposed, with one clarifying change to conform to the 
final rule's use of the term ``consensus standard.''
    Accurate transmission of covered data is important for the 
effective functioning of the market for consumer-authorized data 
sharing. Inaccuracies in covered data impair third parties' ability to 
use that data for innovative purposes, undermining the benefits of data 
sharing for consumers. Accuracy standards also help ensure that 
authorized third parties are acting on behalf of consumers. Third 
parties that fail to take reasonable steps to ensure accuracy when 
receiving or transmitting covered data would not be acting in the 
interests of the consumers to whom the data relates. The specific 
arrangement that a third party makes to receive covered data affects 
the reasonableness of its policies and procedures regarding accuracy. 
For example, the CFPB understands that third parties frequently use 
data aggregators to obtain access to consumers' covered data. Such 
third parties should account for the involvement of a data aggregator 
by ensuring that their policies and procedures include measures to 
reduce inaccuracies that might be introduced by using an intermediary.
    Standard-setting bodies can facilitate a comprehensive set of 
policies and procedures for accuracy that may be used by third parties 
throughout the consumer-authorized data sharing market. In particular, 
standard-setting bodies are likely to develop standards that are 
relevant to reasonable policies and procedures for accuracy--such as 
standardized data formats--that will increase the interoperability of 
the final rule. Further, recognized standard setters will need to 
consider input from both data providers and third parties, and as part 
of the balance attribute of Sec.  1033.141(a), will specifically need 
to consider the input of small entity data providers. Accordingly, a 
recognized standard setter can--contrary to the suggestion of one 
commenter--issue consensus standards flexible enough to accommodate the 
wide array of third party data recipients.
    Regarding comments concerning transmission of standardized formats, 
accepting data in the format in which it is transferred is relevant to 
ensuring accuracy. Section 1033.421(d)(3) does not preclude third 
parties from accepting covered data from a data aggregator in a 
standardized format. The flexibility provided by the policies and 
procedures allows the third party to accept covered data in a way that 
is best for the size and nature of the third party.
    Additionally, CFPA section 1033(d) requires the CFPB to prescribe 
standards applicable to covered persons to promote the development and 
use of standardized formats for information. As discussed in more 
detail under Sec.  1001.2(b) below, CFPA section 1002(15)(A)(vii) 
defines as a financial product or service ``providing payments and 
other financial data processing to a consumer by any technological 
means'' and data aggregators are therefore covered persons under the 
CFPA.\117\ The CFPB intends to monitor the market to evaluate whether 
data aggregators and authorized third parties are using standardized 
and machine-readable formats for covered data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ CFPA section 1002(4) defines ``consumer'' to include ``an 
agent, trustee, or representative acting on behalf of'' a consumer. 
Therefore, when a data aggregator provides financial data processing 
to an authorized third party, the aggregator is also necessarily 
providing financial data processing to a consumer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding comments for a more robust dispute process, the CFPB has 
determined that forgoing overly prescriptive dispute requirements can 
facilitate consistency with robust accuracy requirements.\118\ As the 
CFPB has noted, third parties are likely to be highly diverse in size 
and sophistication. The dispute requirement attempts to ensure that the 
burden of considering disputes is appropriate to the role that a third 
party played in the ecosystem. All third parties will need to consider 
``addressing information provided by a consumer, data provider, or 
another third party regarding inaccuracies in the covered data,'' but 
what is ``reasonable'' will depend on the size and sophistication of 
the third party. For example, data aggregators will likely have more 
extensive dispute processes than third parties that merely receive 
data. Further, the overall flexible nature of the policies and 
procedures accuracy requirement will allow third parties leverage 
existing systems for addressing disputes to the extent that such 
disputes also relate to the transfer of covered data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ As discussed above in part IV.4, certain entities, such as 
data aggregators, may have dispute resolution obligations under 
other statutes, such as the FCRA. The analysis for this provision is 
limited to obligations arising under part 1033 and does not supplant 
other accuracy dispute requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFPB has determined that consumers will benefit from accuracy 
requirements for third parties. Third parties that fail to accurately 
receive data from a data provider, or fail to accurately provide data 
to another third party (when that is appropriate under the general 
limitation on data use), limit the effectiveness of the data access 
right fundamental to CFPA section 1033. Such inaccuracies also impair 
the development of an innovative, competitive market for alternative 
consumer financial products and services. Third party accuracy 
requirements also benefit third parties that rely on intermediaries to 
facilitate consumer-authorized access.

Data Security (Sec.  1033.421(e))

    Proposed Sec.  1033.421(e)(1) would have required a third party to 
certify that it will apply to its systems for the collection, use, and 
retention of covered data an information security program that 
satisfies the applicable rules issued pursuant to section 501 of the 
GLBA (15 U.S.C. 6801). Under proposed Sec.  1033.421(e)(2), if the 
third party is not subject to section 501 of the GLBA, the third party 
will apply to its systems for the collection, use, and retention of 
covered data the information security program required by the FTC's 
Standards for Safeguarding Customer Information, 16 CFR part 314. The 
CFPB preliminarily determined that the GLBA Safeguards Framework could 
be used by third parties to appropriately protect consumer-authorized 
financial data.
    A range of commenters supported the use of the GLBA Safeguards 
Framework for third party data security. One bank commenter stated that 
the GLBA Safeguards Framework would ensure consistent data security 
standards for all ecosystem participants. Additionally, one consumer 
advocate group commenter said the proposed rule would close gaps in 
data security coverage. Another bank commenter stated that third 
parties should, at a

[[Page 90944]]

minimum, follow the GLBA Safeguards Framework.
    On the other hand, one third party commenter argued that the 
Safeguards Framework should not be applied to third parties, because 
compliance would be overly burdensome for third parties. Additionally, 
some commenters believed the final rule should add more specificity to 
the Safeguards requirements, for example, by creating a presumption of 
compliance for previously utilized standards, or consensus standards.
    A number of bank commenters argued that the final rule should apply 
the same GLBA Safeguards Framework guidelines used by the Federal 
functional regulators \119\ to supervise financial institutions. In 
particular, some data providers and trade associations for data 
providers stated that the FTC Safeguards rule was less prescriptive and 
not supported by regular supervision. Similarly, a few commenters 
requested that the final rule address liability by subjecting third 
parties to additional data security obligations, such as the FFIEC 
Information Technology Examination Handbook because, they said, it was 
more detailed than the FTC Safeguards Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ The term ``functional regulators'' is the term that the 
GLBA uses to identify applicable agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, one third party merchant commenter and one third 
party commenter argued that the final rule should not require third 
parties that are merchants to certify to follow the GLBA framework when 
they use consumer-permissioned data to facilitate payments for services 
provided by the merchant. These commenters' concern was threefold. 
First, the commenters argued that the proposed rule was inconsistent 
with the CFPA's limits on the CFPB's authority with respect to 
merchants. Second, the commenters stated that merchants are already 
subject to data security requirements under the National Automated 
Clearing House Association (NACHA) and the payment card industry data 
security standards (PCI DSS), and, given these previous compliance 
obligations, adding the safeguards condition would be overly burdensome 
for the merchant third party. Finally, the commenters stated that, 
under the proposed rule, merchants could be incentivized to avoid GLBA 
Safeguards Rule standards by asking the consumer to go around the open 
banking transaction, for example, by requiring the consumer to type in 
their ACH account and routing number, or by asking the consumer for a 
payment card rather than using an open finance application.
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing Sec.  
1033.421(e) as proposed. Final Sec.  1033.421(e)(1) requires a third 
party to apply to its systems for the collection, use, and retention of 
covered data an information security program that satisfies the 
applicable rules issued pursuant to section 501 of the Gramm-Leach-
Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 6801). Under Sec.  1033.421(e)(2), if the third 
party is not subject to section 501 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the 
third party will apply to its systems for the collection, use, and 
retention of covered data the information security program required by 
the Federal Trade Commission's Standards for Safeguarding Customer 
Information, 16 CFR part 314.
    Requiring third parties to certify that they will comply with the 
GLBA Safeguards Framework will appropriately protect covered data. The 
rule's requirement for third parties to certify that they will follow 
the GLBA Safeguards Framework ensures consistency in protection as 
covered data moves from a data provider to one or more third parties 
because all or substantially all data providers are already subject to 
the GLBA Safeguards Framework,\120\ most likely the Interagency 
Guidelines Establishing Information Security Standards issued by the 
Federal functional regulators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ Section 501 of the GLBA (15 U.S.C. 6801) applies to 
financial institutions, which are defined as companies that offer 
consumers financial products or services like loans, financial or 
investment advice, or insurance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFPB declines to include greater specificity in the data 
security certification for third parties, as requested by some 
commenters. Regarding comments requesting incorporation of industry 
standards into third party data security provisions, the CFPB notes 
that changing the security framework beyond the proposed approach would 
create a new, CFPA section 1033-specific data security standard, which 
could add complexity for third parties. The CFPB has determined that by 
not incorporating industry standards or overly prescriptive standards 
relating specifically to data security, the rule better facilitates 
compliance with CFPA section 1033.
    Regarding comments on the inadequacy of the FTC Safeguards Rule 
compared to the Safeguards Guidelines, for reasons stated in the 
proposed rule, the CFPB has determined the FTC Safeguards Rule provides 
adequate protection. The commenters failed to engage with the proposed 
rule's explanation that the FTC's Safeguards Rule includes slightly 
more prescriptive requirements, such as encryption, for certain 
elements, because the Safeguards Rule must be usable by a financial 
institution to determine appropriate data security measures without 
regular interaction with an examiner from a supervising agency. 
Additionally, concerning third party liability, the CFPB finds that the 
final rule's data security requirements will help protect against data 
breaches and any ensuing losses that third parties or data providers 
might suffer.
    The CFPB has determined merchant third parties that are authorized 
third parties under the rule should be required to certify to comply 
with the same data security obligations as other third parties. 
Although merchant commenters expressed concern that merchants are 
already subject to data security requirements through NACHA and PCI 
rules, the CFPB has determined the relative similarities between these 
rules and the FTC Safeguards Rule suggests that the burden imposed on 
the merchants by the final rule would be minor. The FTC Safeguards Rule 
requires financial institutions to design an information security 
program that addresses several elements, including designating a 
qualified individual, performing a risk assessment, implementing 
controls such as encryption and multi-factor authentication, and 
testing or monitoring the effectiveness of the program's controls. 
Similarly, NACHA and PCI rules requires covered financial institutions 
to develop, implement, and maintain an information security program 
with administrative, technical, and physical safeguards designed to 
protect customer information.
    Further, contrary to one merchant commenter's concern with what it 
felt was a one-size-fits-all approach in the proposed rule, the 
flexibility of the Safeguards Rule would allow for some discretion in 
how the merchant third parties structure their data security systems. 
Additionally, treating NACHA or PCI standards as sufficient for 
purposes of a third party's data security certification would allow a 
private entity to determine the substance of the final rule's data 
security standards. This approach creates a risk that future NACHA or 
PCI standards might diverge from the CFPB's views about the proper data 
security obligations for authorized third parties.
    Regarding comments stating that the CFPB does not have the 
authority over merchant third parties to require those third parties to 
certify to comply with the FTC Safeguards rule, the CFPB notes

[[Page 90945]]

that the certification requirement in Sec.  1033.421(e), for merchants 
and all third parties, is a condition to access covered data and not a 
freestanding requirement.
Provision of Covered Data to Other Third Parties (Sec.  1033.421(f))
    The CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.421(f) to require a third party to 
certify that, before providing covered data to another third party, it 
will require that other third party by contract to comply with certain 
obligations. The proposed rule noted that, in some circumstances, third 
parties that are authorized to access covered data from a data provider 
on behalf of a consumer would need to share that data with another 
third party. The authorized third party's ability to share covered data 
would be limited by the conditions in proposed Sec.  1033.421(a) and 
(c), under which the authorized third party would limit its use of 
covered data, including sharing data with other third parties, to what 
is reasonably necessary to provide the consumer's requested product or 
service. Subject to that limitation, the authorized third party would 
be permitted to provide the data to another third party.
    The CFPB proposed that the consumer protections provided by the 
third party obligations in proposed Sec.  1033.421 generally would 
apply when the covered data are provided by the authorized third party 
to another third party. The CFPB noted that, otherwise, the third party 
that receives the data from the authorized third party would not be 
subject to, for example, the limitations on use or the requirements for 
data privacy and data security that apply to the authorized third 
party, and the consumer would lose these important protections for the 
covered data, which ensure that data are used on their behalf.
    Accordingly, the CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.421(f) that, before 
providing the covered data to another third party, the authorized third 
party would certify that it will require the other third party by 
contract to comply with the third party obligations in proposed Sec.  
1033.421(a) through (g) and the condition in proposed Sec.  
1033.421(h)(3), upon receipt of the notice described in proposed Sec.  
1033.421(h)(2). Proposed Sec.  1033.421(f) stated that any provision of 
covered data to another third party would be subject to the restriction 
in proposed Sec.  1033.421(c), which specifies that provision of data 
to other third parties is a type of use of covered data that would be 
limited by proposed Sec.  1033.421(a) to what is reasonably necessary 
to provide the consumer's requested product or service requested. 
Proposed Sec.  1033.421(f) did not require the authorized third party 
to certify that it will bind the other third party by contract to 
comply with all of the third party obligations in proposed Sec.  
1033.421. The CFPB preliminarily determined that certain of the third 
party obligations would be of limited applicability to the other third 
party, including the obligation to provide certain information to the 
consumer in proposed Sec.  1033.421(g) and the revocation obligation in 
proposed Sec.  1033.421(h). The CFPB requested comment on whether the 
approach in proposed Sec.  1033.421(f) would provide sufficient 
protection to consumers and their covered data when an authorized third 
party provides that data to another third party. The CFPB also 
requested comment on which third party obligations in proposed Sec.  
1033.421 should be included in this approach.
    A number of commenters addressed the proposed approach in Sec.  
1033.421(f). A bank trade association commenter and a trade association 
representing nonbank entities both supported the proposed rule's 
approach to applying third party obligations when third parties provide 
covered data to downstream parties. Other commenters, including a bank 
trade association, a bank, and a consumer advocate, maintained that the 
proposed approach in Sec.  1033.421(f) would not provide sufficient 
protections for consumers' covered data when an authorized third party 
provided that data to downstream parties. The bank and bank trade 
association commenters and the bank commenter stated that the proposed 
approach of requiring the authorized third party to certify that it 
will include contractual provisions obligating downstream parties to 
comply with certain obligations in proposed Sec.  1033.421 would be 
insufficient and that the rule should impose those obligations directly 
on downstream parties. The trade association commenter recommended 
that, at a minimum, the rule should provide that, in addition to 
including contractual provisions requiring a downstream party to comply 
with the obligations, the authorized party must also ensure that the 
downstream parties comply with the obligations. The bank trade 
association commenter and a bank commenter also recommended that the 
rule should require the authorized third party to disclose to the 
consumer and the data provider which other third parties will be 
provided with the covered data. The bank trade association commenter 
stated that disclosing this information would provide consumers with 
transparency and control over their data and would allow data providers 
to conduct risk assessments of downstream parties.
    Some commenters, including a bank, a bank trade association, and a 
consumer advocate, recommended that the rule clarify when an authorized 
third party may share covered data with a downstream party. They noted 
that an authorized third party would be permitted to access covered 
data only for the purpose of providing the consumer's requested product 
or service, so they stated that it is not clear when it would be 
permissible for the authorized third party to share the covered data 
with additional third parties. A research institute commenter stated 
that proposed Sec.  1033.421(f) would not appear to be flexible enough 
to permit sharing with a downstream third party when the authorized 
third party accesses the covered data for certain products that involve 
the sharing of covered data. For example, the research institute 
commenter stated that it was not clear if the proposed approach would 
permit an authorized third party to access covered data to identify 
rent, cell phone, and utility payments and share that information by 
reporting those payments to CRAs to help build the consumer's credit.
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is adopting Sec.  
1033.421(f) as proposed with two minor changes. As finalized, Sec.  
1033.421(f) provides that, before providing covered data to another 
third party, subject to the limitation described in Sec.  1033.421(a) 
and (c), the third party must certify that it will require the other 
third party by contract to comply with the third party obligations in 
Sec.  1033.421(a) through (f) and the condition in Sec.  1033.421(i) 
upon receipt of the notice described Sec.  1033.421(h)(2).
    Under the proposed rule, third parties also would have been 
required to certify that they would require downstream parties to 
comply with the provisions in Sec.  1033.421(g) (related to keeping 
consumers informed). However, the provisions in Sec.  1033.421(g) would 
be of limited relevance for downstream parties and the CFPB concludes 
that an authorized third party therefore should not be required to 
certify that it will include them in contracts with downstream parties 
with which it will share covered data. Section 1033.421(g)(1) requires 
a third party to provide the consumer with a copy of the authorization 
disclosure. The downstream third party would be receiving the covered 
data for the purpose of providing the product or

[[Page 90946]]

service requested by the consumer from the authorized third party, and 
the authorized third party, not the downstream party would have 
provided the authorization disclosure to the consumer. Section 
1033.421(g)(2) also requires a third party to provide contact 
information that enables a consumer to receive answers to questions 
about the third party's access to the consumer's covered data. The 
authorized third party, not a downstream party, is more likely to have 
a relationship with the consumer and the consumer is more likely to 
attempt to contact the authorized third party with questions about 
access to the consumer's covered data. Section 1033.421(g)(3) requires 
the third party to establish and maintain reasonable policies and 
procedures to ensure that the third party, upon request, provides 
certain information to the consumer. Again, the consumer is more likely 
to contact the authorized third party to obtain information and the 
information listed in Sec.  1033.421(g)(3) is primarily information 
possessed by the authorized third party. Accordingly, the final rule 
does not require an authorized third party to include the obligations 
in Sec.  1033.421(g) in contractual provisions with downstream parties. 
In addition, the final rule changes the reference from Sec.  
1033.421(h)(3) to Sec.  1033.421(i) because, as described below, the 
final rule includes a new Sec.  1033.421(i) that includes provisions 
from proposed Sec.  1033.421(b)(4) and (h)(3).
    The CFPB has determined that requiring a third party to certify 
that it will include contract provisions requiring downstream parties 
to abide by the specified obligations will provide sufficient 
protections, including protections that impose limitations on use and 
requirements for data security. As discussed above in connection with 
the authorization procedures in Sec.  1033.401, requiring a third party 
to certify that it will include contractual provisions requiring 
downstream parties to abide by the specified obligations will provide 
sufficient protection. If a downstream party breaches the obligation, 
the CFPB could enforce those obligations using its authority to prevent 
unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, and other regulators, 
the consumer, and the data provider also may be able to enforce those 
provisions.
    The CFPB has concluded that further clarification of when an 
authorized third party may share covered data with downstream parties 
is not necessary. Section 1033.421(f) specifically references the 
limitations in Sec.  1033.421(a) and (c), so the authorized third party 
is able to share data with other third parties only as reasonably 
necessary to provide the product or service requested by the consumer 
from the authorized third party. Accordingly, downstream parties will 
be able to use the data only to assist the authorized third party with 
providing the requested product or service and not for their own 
purposes. The CFPB also has determined that the approach in Sec.  
1033.421(f) is sufficiently flexible to accommodate products like those 
suggested by the research institute commenter for which sharing of data 
is part of the product. Sharing the data in those circumstances would 
be reasonably necessary to provide the product requested by the 
consumer.
    The CFPB declines to require that the authorized third party 
certify that it will disclose the identity of any third parties with 
which it will share the consumer's covered data. With respect to data 
aggregators, Sec.  1033.431(b) requires the authorization disclosure to 
include the name of any data aggregator that will assist the third 
party seeking authorization with accessing covered data and a brief 
description of the services the data provider will provide. However, at 
the time of the authorization, the third party seeking authorization 
may not know if it will be sharing covered data with other third 
parties and, if it will, the identity of those third parties. Moreover, 
the limitations in Sec.  1033.421(a) and (c) restrict the circumstances 
in which an authorized third party is permitted to share covered data 
with other third parties. Finally, a consumer that wants to obtain 
additional information from the authorized third party about such data 
sharing may do so, as provided in Sec.  1033.421(g). Accordingly, the 
CFPB has determined that it is not necessary to provide information 
during authorization about sharing covered data with downstream 
parties.
    As noted above, a bank trade association recommended that Sec.  
1033.421(f) require the authorized third party to certify that it also 
will ensure that any downstream parties that they provide with covered 
data are abiding by their contractual obligations. The CFPB expects 
that, in addition to certifying that they will include contract 
provisions obligating downstream parties with which they share data to 
comply with certain obligations, authorized third parties will take 
reasonable steps to ensure that those downstream parties are complying 
with those obligations. Authorized third parties are permitted to share 
covered data with downstream parties only as reasonably necessary to 
provide the consumer's requested product or service. The CFPB expects 
that authorized third parties will, in the interest of maintaining 
relationships with consumers and avoiding potential liability for 
violating their own certifications to consumers, including the 
certification that covered data will only be collected, used, and 
retained as reasonably necessary to provide the consumer's requested 
product or service, perform due diligence in determining which 
downstream parties they select to assist in providing the consumer's 
requested product or service and take reasonable steps to monitor those 
downstream parties.

Ensuring Consumers Are Informed (Sec.  1033.421(g))

    The CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.421(g) to require a third party to 
certify that it agrees to certain obligations designed to ensure that 
consumers can obtain information about the third party's access to 
their data.
    Under proposed Sec.  1033.421(g)(1), a third party would have been 
required to certify that it would provide the consumer with a copy of 
the authorization disclosure that is signed or otherwise agreed to by 
the consumer and reflects the date of the consumer's signature or other 
written or electronic consent. Upon obtaining authorization to access 
covered data on the consumer's behalf, the third party would deliver a 
copy to the consumer or make it available in a location that is readily 
accessible to the consumer, such as the third party's interface. The 
proposed rule specified that, if the third party made the authorization 
disclosure available in such a location, the third party also would 
have been required to certify that it would ensure it is accessible to 
the consumer until the third party's access to the consumer's covered 
data terminates. The CFPB sought comment on whether this is the right 
time period. The CFPB proposed Sec.  1033.421(g)(1) because it 
preliminarily determined that consumers would benefit from being able 
to access authorization disclosures they have previously signed. For 
example, the consumer may not recall which third parties are accessing 
their data, what data are being accessed, and for what reasons. Without 
this information, it would be difficult for a consumer to decide 
whether to continue authorizing data access.
    Under proposed Sec.  1033.421(g)(2), a third party would have been 
required to certify that it would provide readily identifiable contact 
information that enables a consumer to receive answers to questions 
about the third party's

[[Page 90947]]

access to the consumer's covered data. The proposal stated that a third 
party could satisfy proposed Sec.  1033.421(g)(2) through its existing 
customer service functions, provided that this function is equipped to 
handle the relevant questions. The CFPB proposed Sec.  1033.421(g)(2) 
because it preliminarily determined that the consumer should be able to 
contact the third party to receive answers to questions about the third 
party's access to the consumer's covered data. The proposed rule stated 
that the authorization disclosure would contain a limited amount of 
information pursuant to proposed Sec.  1033.411(b), so it may not 
address every question the consumer has about the third party's data 
access. The CFPB sought comment on additional requirements regarding 
the nature of the contact that the consumer can access through the 
contact information provided by the third party, such as whether the 
consumer must be able to access a human contact or whether the consumer 
must receive a response within a specified timeframe.
    Under proposed Sec.  1033.421(g)(3), third parties would have been 
required to certify that they would establish and maintain reasonable 
written policies and procedures designed to ensure that the third party 
provides to the consumer, upon request, the following information about 
the third party's access to the consumer's covered data: (1) categories 
of covered data collected; (2) reasons for collecting the covered data; 
(3) names of parties with which the covered data was shared; (4) 
reasons for sharing the covered data; (5) status of the third party's 
authorization; and (6) how the consumer can revoke the third party's 
authorization to access the consumer's covered data and verification 
the third party has adhered to requests for revocation. Proposed Sec.  
1033.421(g)(3) stated that the third party had flexibility to determine 
its policies and procedures in light of the size, nature, and 
complexity of its activities, and the third party would periodically 
review its policies and procedures and update them as appropriate to 
ensure their continued effectiveness. The CFPB proposed Sec.  
1033.421(g)(3) because it preliminarily determined that, at any time 
during the third party's access to the consumer's data, the consumer 
should be able to obtain this information from the third party. The 
CFPB proposed to require a third party to certify that it would provide 
the names of parties with whom the covered data are shared because the 
CFPB preliminarily determined that this information would be valuable 
for consumers to know to protect their privacy, exercise control over 
which parties are accessing their covered data, and evaluate whether to 
continue sharing data with the third party. The CFPB proposed to 
require a third party to certify that it would provide information 
about the status of the third party's authorization because it may not 
be apparent to the consumer whether the third party's authorization is 
still active or whether the third party is currently collecting data.
    With respect to the information about the categories of covered 
data the third party is collecting, the reasons for collecting the 
covered data, and information about how the consumer can revoke the 
third party's access to the consumer's data, the proposed rule stated 
that some consumers may want to obtain this information by contacting 
the third party. The CFPB preliminarily determined that it would be 
appropriate to require the third party to certify that it would provide 
this information on request given that the third party originally 
provided this information on the authorization disclosure. The CFPB 
sought comment on whether the list in proposed Sec.  1033.421(g)(3) 
should be modified, including whether additional categories of 
information should be added.
    The CFPB received a few comments on proposed Sec.  1033.421(g). A 
bank trade association commenter, a Member of Congress, and a consumer 
advocate commenter supported the proposed rule's general approach to 
requiring third parties to keep consumers informed because it would 
allow consumers to make decisions with respect to their sensitive 
financial data.
    The bank trade association commenter requested that the method for 
accessing this information be easy and intuitive and that information 
on the duration of data sharing be made available to consumers. The 
Congressmember's comment supported information about data security 
being made available to consumers.
    A different bank trade association commenter requested that any 
separate data aggregator certification be available to the consumer 
upon request from either the third party or the data aggregator. A 
consumer advocate commenter requested more formal requirements for 
transparency into downstream data flows, detailing each onward transfer 
as well as the purposes of the transfer to allow consumers visibility 
and control on how financial information would get subsequently 
utilized. Another consumer advocate commenter and an individual 
commenter asserted that third parties should be required to provide 
information on how the third party makes decisions using data, 
including what data are used. A data provider commenter requested that 
the data provider name be made available on a platform such as a 
consumer revocation dashboard rather than on the authorization 
disclosure.
    For the reasons described herein, the CFPB is finalizing Sec.  
1033.421(g) with modifications. First, the CFPB is finalizing in Sec.  
1033.421(g)(3)(vii) an additional requirement that the third party 
certify to maintain policies and procedures to provide to consumers, 
upon request, a copy of any data aggregator certification statement 
that was provided to the consumer separate from the authorization 
disclosure, pursuant to Sec.  1033.431(c)(2). The CFPB is finalizing 
Sec.  1033.421(g)(3)(vii) to ensure that consumers have access to the 
same information regardless of whether a data aggregator certification 
was included in the authorization disclosure or in a separate data 
aggregator certification. Second, the CFPB is modifying the language of 
proposed Sec.  1033.421(g)(3)(iii) to specify that names of any parties 
with which covered data was shared must be made available in a form 
that is readily understandable to consumers for consistency with the 
authorization disclosure. Third, the CFPB is modifying the language of 
proposed Sec.  1033.421(g)(3)(iii) to better align with the 
requirements in Sec. Sec.  1033.401(c) and 1033.411(a). Final Sec.  
1033.401(c) does not include language stating that a third party can 
obtain a consumer's express informed consent by having the consumer 
``otherwise agree'' to the authorization disclosure. Finally, the final 
rule makes non-substantive changes to the language of proposed Sec.  
1033.421(g)(3).
    The CFPB is not modifying its approach regarding downstream data 
flows or notification of sharing with downstream parties because the 
proposed rule required third parties to provide the ``names of parties 
with which the covered data was shared.'' The CFPB is not adding a 
requirement to provide information about how the third party uses data 
to make decisions because doing so would be outside the intended scope 
of a provision regarding providing information about data access. 
Additionally, such information may be, in whole or in part, proprietary 
information. The CFPB is not modifying Sec.  1033.421(c) to include the 
data provider's name or information about duration of data access 
because the consumer will have this information in the authorization 
disclosure. Finally,

[[Page 90948]]

the CFPB is not adding a requirement to include information about data 
security because this information may be highly technical and is 
unlikely to be useful to consumers.
Revocation of Authorization (Sec.  1033.421(h))
    Proposed Sec.  1033.421(h) included three components related to the 
third party's certification to provide the consumer with a mechanism to 
revoke the third party's authorization to access the consumer's covered 
data. These components are discussed below.
Provision of Revocation Method (Sec.  1033.421(h)(1))
    Under proposed Sec.  1033.421(h)(1), the third party would certify 
to provide the consumer with a mechanism to revoke the third party's 
authorization to access the consumer's covered data that is as easy to 
access and operate as the initial authorization. Proposed Sec.  
1033.421(h)(1) also stated that the third party would also ensure the 
consumer is not subject to costs or penalties for revoking the third 
party's authorization.
    The proposed rule stated that the CFPB preliminarily determined 
that for the consumer's authorization for third party data access to be 
meaningful, consumers need to be able revoke that authorization at any 
time. The proposed rule also stated that a mechanism being as easy as 
the initial authorization would ensure third parties would not bury the 
revocation mechanism or otherwise obfuscate consumers' ability to 
utilize it. Additionally, the proposed rule stated that, for revocation 
of authorization to be free of cost or penalties to the consumer, 
consumers should be able to revoke their authorization to data access 
for purposes of one product or service but maintain that same third 
party's data access for purposes of another product or service. 
Therefore, as part of proposed Sec.  1033.421(h)(1), third parties 
would certify to allow consumers to revoke consent to data access for a 
particular product or service and maintain consent to data access for 
any others.
    Comments about this aspect of the proposed rule from a Member of 
Congress, consumer advocates, research organizations, trade 
associations for credit unions and banks, third parties, data 
aggregators, and individuals were generally supportive of the proposed 
approach to requiring third parties to provide consumers with a method 
to revoke third party authorizations to access covered data. 
Commenters' suggested amendments, clarifications, or additions to the 
proposed rule included: consumers' ability to revoke should be 
nonwaivable and the mechanism should be provided ``without friction or 
delay;'' the mechanism should allow revocations at the granular level, 
including allowing consumers to expressly select the account for which 
authorization is revoked; the mechanism should allow the consumer to 
revoke authorization for any entity involved with the data sharing 
transaction; the final rule should specify a time limit by which third 
parties must notify other parties of the revocation request; and data 
aggregators should be required to provide consumers with a revocation 
request.
    After considering comments, and for the reasons discussed herein, 
the CFPB is finalizing proposed Sec.  1033.421(h)(1) without 
substantive change. The CFPB is making a non-substantive modification 
to change ``mechanism to revoke'' to ``method to revoke'' for 
consistency with the provision that allows data providers to provide a 
revocation method to consumers. As described above, some commenters 
suggested the CFPB should state that revocation is nonwaivable and 
should be provided without friction or delay, or should allow for more 
granular choices. The CFPB declines to make these changes because Sec.  
1033.421(h)(1) sufficiently ensures consumers may revoke third party 
authorizations at any point. Further, the CFPB has determined that 
third parties are in the best position to understand the covered data 
they need to collect to facilitate provision of a consumer's requested 
product or service. Offering consumers granular revocations might 
confuse consumers or frustrate the third parties' ability to provide 
that product or service.
    The CFPB affirms that, for revocation of authorization to be free 
of cost or penalties to the consumer, consumers should be able to 
revoke their authorization to data access for purposes of one product 
or service but maintain that same third party's data access for 
purposes of another product or service they are receiving from the 
third party. In other words, third parties conditioning the provision 
of one product or service on the consumer providing consent to data 
access for another product or service is a cost or penalty on the 
consumer. Therefore, as part of Sec.  1033.421(h)(1), third parties 
must certify that they will allow consumers to revoke consent to data 
access for a particular product or service and maintain consent to data 
access for any others.
    For the consumer's authorization for third party data access to be 
meaningful, consumers need to be able revoke that authorization at any 
time. For this reason, Sec.  1033.421(h)(1) is designed to ensure 
consumers can provide meaningful authorization to third party data 
access and can easily and effectively revoke that authorization 
whenever they choose. Ensuring the revocation method is as easy to 
access and operate as the initial authorization ensures third parties 
do not bury the revocation mechanism or otherwise obfuscate, block, or 
interfere with consumers' ability to utilize it.
Notice of Revocation (Sec.  1033.421(h)(2))
    Under proposed Sec.  1033.421(h)(2), the third party would certify 
to notify the data provider, any data aggregator, and other third 
parties to whom it has provided the consumer's covered data when the 
third party receives a revocation request from the consumer. The CFPB 
proposed to require authorized third parties to certify that they will 
notify other third parties of the consumer's revocation to ensure that 
those third parties that receive covered data from the authorized third 
party are aware of the status of the consumer's authorization and can, 
accordingly, meet applicable certifications related to use and 
retention of that data. The CFPB also proposed in Sec.  1033.421(h)(2) 
to require authorized third parties to notify data providers of the 
consumer's revocation to ensure data providers are aware of the status 
of the consumer's authorization.
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing Sec.  
1033.421(h)(2) as proposed. As described above, some commenters 
suggested that the final rule specify a time limit by which third 
parties must notify other parties of the revocation request. The CFPB 
has considered these comments but concludes that Sec.  1033.421(h)(1) 
sufficiently addresses the timing of the third party's notice of 
consumer revocation to other third parties, since it requires such 
notification when the third party receives the consumer's revocation 
request.
Effect of Revocation
    Proposed Sec.  1033.421(h)(3) would have required the third party 
to certify that, upon receipt of a consumer's revocation request or 
notice of a revocation request pursuant to proposed Sec.  1033.331(e), 
the third party will (1) no longer collect covered data pursuant to the 
most recent authorization, and (2) no longer use or retain covered data 
that was previously collected pursuant to the most recent authorization 
unless use or retention of that covered data remains reasonably 
necessary to provide the consumer's requested product or service

[[Page 90949]]

under proposed Sec.  1033.421(a). The CFPB is finalizing these 
provisions without substantive change in Sec.  1033.421(i), discussed 
below. Comments regarding proposed Sec.  1033.421(h)(3) are discussed 
in detail below related to Sec.  1033.421(i).
Effects of Maximum Duration and Revocation on Collection, Use, and 
Retention (Sec.  1033.421(i))
Proposed Rule
    As described above, proposed Sec.  1033.421(b)(4) and (h)(3) 
addressed the effects of maximum duration and receipt of a revocation 
notice on collection, use, and retention of consumers' covered data. 
With respect to the effect of maximum duration and revocation on use 
and retention, proposed Sec.  1033.421(b)(4)(ii) and (h)(3)(ii) would 
have specified, consistent with the general limitation in proposed 
Sec.  1033.421(a), that when the maximum durational period ends and the 
consumer does not provide a new authorization, or upon receipt of a 
consumer's revocation request or notice of a revocation request 
pursuant to proposed Sec.  1033.331(e), the third party may no longer 
use or retain covered data that was previously collected unless use or 
retention remains reasonably necessary to provide the consumer's 
requested product or service under proposed Sec.  1033.421(a). The 
proposed rule stated that, in the current market, third parties use and 
retain consumer data for reasons unrelated to providing a consumer-
requested product or service, including after a consumer no longer 
receives the product or service from the third party. The proposed rule 
further stated that such residual use and retention, which seldom 
occurs with consumer awareness, can result in significant privacy and 
security risks to consumers and can undermine the consumer's ability to 
control access to their covered data. Proposed Sec.  1033.421(b)(4)(ii) 
and (h)(3)(ii) would address this concern by making clear that the 
general limitation on use and retention in proposed Sec.  1033.421(a) 
applies to use and retention of covered data after a one-year maximum 
durational period ends and the consumer does not provide a new 
authorization, or when a consumer requests revocation pursuant to 
proposed Sec.  1033.421(h) or Sec.  1033.331(e).
    The proposed rule stated that, while use and retention of covered 
data will not be reasonably necessary for most purposes after the third 
party's authorization ends, it may continue in some circumstances. The 
proposed rule provided the following examples for when use and 
retention might continue: a subpoena could require the retention, 
beyond the maximum period, of specific data collected in that period; 
meeting such legal requirements can continue to remain reasonably 
necessary even if only in connection with providing the product prior 
to the expiration of the maximum period. The proposed rule also stated 
that the consumer could provide a clear, affirmative indication that 
they want to continue to use the product beyond the maximum period in a 
manner supported by the use and retention of data collected prior to 
expiration of that period. In that context, use and retention of some 
or all of the data could meet the general standard in proposed Sec.  
1033.421(a) even as the consumer no longer makes use of the product in 
any manner that would require continued data collection.
    The proposed rule explained that the CFPB preliminarily determined 
that proposed Sec.  1033.421(b)(4)(ii) and (h)(3)(ii) would provide 
third parties with sufficient flexibility to address circumstances in 
which continued use or retention of previously collected data might be 
permitted under the general standard in proposed Sec.  1033.421(a), 
while ensuring that consumer data are not used and retained in a manner 
that does not properly reflect the control afforded the consumer under 
that same general standard.
Comments Received
    Support for the standard in proposed Sec.  1033.421(a) included 
support for the general limitation principles as they would apply to 
third party retention of covered data. For example, a Member of 
Congress, a third party, and a trade association for data providers 
supported the general standard as it applies to retention. The third 
party stated that data should not be retained except to fulfill the 
service requested, while the trade association said cybersecurity risks 
increase when third parties can accumulate and store data.
    Feedback on this aspect of the proposed rule fell into various 
categories, most notably: (1) seeking an exception to, or variation of, 
the general limitation standard related to retention; (2) asserting 
that consumers should have a role in determining how long data are 
retained; (3) asserting that the general limitation standard and the 
proposed rule's explanation do not provide enough clarity as to when 
third parties must no longer retain covered data; and (4) asserting 
that the retention standard is too general and not strong enough.
    Commenters who requested an exception or variation on the 
limitation standard in the context of retention, mostly trade 
associations for third parties and research organizations, suggested 
that the proposed rule on retention is too restrictive. Commenters with 
this view stated that the final rule should allow retention of de-
identified or pseudonymized data for specific purposes, like 
supplemental primary uses, public secondary uses, or research, or allow 
retention of historical data for some period so the product, service, 
or tool remains populated if a consumer reauthorizes shortly after the 
durational period expires. Commenters also stated that a restrictive 
retention limit would be harmful to beneficial products and services 
that rely on historical data, like cash-flow underwriting. A trade 
association for banks asked that the final rule allow third parties to 
retain data as long as necessary to defend themselves from consumer 
complaints. Finally, a research organization suggested the final rule 
should implement affirmative data deletion deadlines and require that 
data retention beyond three years be supported by documentation that 
the data continues to be reasonably necessary for the provision of the 
consumer's requested products or services, unless retention is required 
for compliance with other laws.
    Commenters that suggested that consumers should have a role in 
determining how long data are retained--mostly trade associations for 
banks and research organizations--stated that consumers should be able 
to consent to how long data are retained or should be able to opt in to 
retention of de-identified data. The same commenters suggested that the 
proposed rule was too vague for consumers to understand what will be 
retained or for third parties to know how to comply. Some commenters in 
this category suggested finalizing an explicit requirement to delete 
upon the expiration of duration or when a consumer revokes.
    Some commenters, including research organizations and trade 
associations for banks, asserted that the retention standard is too 
general and not strong enough. One commenter stated that the proposed 
rule would only discourage indefinite retention and that the final rule 
should be more prohibitive. Another suggested the final rule should 
implement mandatory time periods by which third parties must delete all 
data.
    Finally, one third party commenter asked that the final rule 
clarify what happens to ``copied data'' held by authorized third 
parties and data aggregators.

[[Page 90950]]

Final Rule
    For the reasons described herein, the CFPB is finalizing in Sec.  
1033.421(i) the provision related to the effect of maximum duration on 
collection, use, and retention in proposed Sec.  1033.421(c)(4) and 
consumers' revocation requests in proposed Sec.  1033.421(h)(3). As 
such, under Sec.  1033.421(i), if a consumer does not provide a new 
authorization as described in Sec.  1033.421(b)(3), or if a third party 
receives a revocation request as described in Sec.  1033.421(h)(1) or 
notice of a consumer's revocation request as described in Sec.  
1033.331(e), a third party will: (1) no longer collect covered data 
pursuant to the most recent authorization; and (2) no longer use or 
retain covered data that was previously collected pursuant to the most 
recent authorization unless use or retention of that covered data 
remains reasonably necessary to provide the consumer's requested 
product or service under Sec.  1033.421(a).
    With respect to Sec.  1033.421(i)(1), the CFPB has determined that 
the general limitation in Sec.  1033.421(a) will require third parties 
to stop collecting covered data when the maximum durational period ends 
and the consumer has not provided a new authorization or when the 
consumer requests revocation. In those circumstances, collection would 
no longer be reasonably necessary to provide the consumer's requested 
product or service. Ensuring that collection stops at these points 
affords consumers control over the collection of covered data.
    With respect to Sec.  1033.421(i)(2), the CFPB has determined that 
the general limitation in Sec.  1033.421(a) will, in most 
circumstances, require the third party to no longer use or retain 
covered data when the maximum durational period ends and the consumer 
has not provided a new authorization or when the consumer requests 
revocation. The consumer revoking third party authorization or not 
providing a new authorization after one year, all other things being 
equal, indicates that the existing authorization, without more, no 
longer supports use or retention of covered data that has been 
collected under its terms. However, specific circumstances may justify 
departure from this normal course and, consistent with the general 
standard in Sec.  1033.421(a), allow continued use or retention of some 
or all previously collected covered data, even when collection of new 
covered data has stopped.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ A third party commenter suggested that the proposed rule 
contained a technical error that would not provide sufficient 
flexibility for third parties to retain previously collected data 
for permissible uses. However, as noted, the final rule contains 
flexibility when circumstances justify such continued retention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, one commenter asked that the final rule clarify 
what happens to ``copied data'' that third parties might have following 
revocation. The commenter did not elaborate on the meaning of ``copied 
data,'' but assuming copied data refers to copies of covered data that 
third parties receive or make, the CFPB notes that the general 
limitation under Sec.  1033.421(a) would apply and such copied data 
could only be used or retained as reasonably necessary to provide the 
consumer's requested product or service.
    Additionally, as described related to Sec.  1033.421(b), in unusual 
circumstances a data provider might provide a third party more data 
than the third party requested. This may result in the third party 
involuntarily collecting more data than is reasonably necessary to 
provide the consumer's requested product or service. The CFPB notes 
that, in those circumstances, the general limitation on use and 
retention in Sec.  1033.421(a) would apply to that data. While use of 
that data would not be reasonably necessary to provide the consumer's 
requested product or service, the general limitation standard would 
allow third parties to retain covered data for as long as reasonably 
necessary to locate and delete that data.
    Finally, as noted above in Sec.  1033.421(b) regarding collection, 
when the third party receives information that indicates the consumer 
may no longer expect to receive the product or service, the third party 
should confirm collection of covered data remains reasonably necessary. 
In those circumstances, use and retention of covered data may no longer 
be reasonably necessary. The CFPB has determined that Sec.  
1033.421(i)(2) provides third parties with sufficient flexibility to 
address circumstances in which continued use or retention of previously 
collected data might be justified under the general limitation. The 
certification in Sec.  1033.421(i)(2) also ensures that covered data 
are not used and retained in a manner that does not properly reflect 
the control afforded the consumer when they do not provide a new 
authorization after a maximum durational period has ended or when they 
request revocation.
5. Use of Data Aggregator (Sec.  1033.431)
    The CFPB proposed certain requirements for the third party 
authorization procedures when a third party uses a data aggregator to 
assist with accessing covered data on behalf of a consumer. Currently, 
many third parties rely on data aggregators to assist with accessing 
and processing consumer financial data. The CFPB proposed in Sec.  
1033.431 to assign certain responsibilities for the authorization 
procedures and impose certain conditions on the third party and the 
data aggregator.
    A number of commenters addressed how the rule generally should 
treat data aggregators. Several commenters, including bank and bank 
trade association commenters stated that the rule should impose strong 
limitations on data aggregators. One bank trade association commenter 
stated that data aggregators often possess far greater bargaining power 
than third parties, so they can dictate terms, and that the final rule 
should provide that data aggregators are jointly and severally liable 
for issues that occur at the third party to which it is providing 
services. A bank commenter stated that the proposal underestimates the 
systemic risks posed by data aggregators, noting that they likely have 
more consumer data than the largest banks and will continue to control 
vast amounts of data after the rule takes effect. Another bank trade 
association commenter and a credit union commenter stated that data 
aggregator should face even more stringent controls on their use of 
covered data because consumers have no meaningful choice over the 
aggregator that is used. Two bank trade association commenters 
recommended that the rule prohibit data aggregators from using covered 
data for their own purposes. Several commenters, including bank and 
bank trade association commenters, maintained that the rule should 
impose obligations directly on data aggregators, stating that the CFPB 
should be responsible for enforcing those obligations, rather than 
relying on the certification-based approach and relying on authorized 
third parties, consumers or data providers to ensure that data 
aggregators comply with the obligations. Several commenters, including 
bank and bank trade association commenters, requested that the CFPB 
exercise supervisory authority over data aggregators to ensure that 
they comply with the rule.
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is generally adopting 
the approach to data aggregators as proposed, with certain changes in 
Sec.  1033.431(c) regarding data aggregator certification. Those 
provisions are described in more detail below.
    As finalized, Sec.  1033.431 imposes various obligations on data 
aggregators, including the requirement in

[[Page 90951]]

Sec.  1033.431(c) that data aggregators must certify to the consumer 
that they will comply with specified obligations. The CFPB declines to 
provide that data aggregators are jointly and severally liable for 
issues that occur at the third party to which the data aggregator is 
providing services. Depending on the context, those issues could arise 
from conduct unrelated to the services provided by the data aggregator, 
so the CFPB has determined that generally imposing joint and several 
liability would not be appropriate. The rule does, however, require 
data aggregators to certify to the consumer that they will comply with 
specified obligations, and in the event that data aggregators breach 
those obligations, the CFPB can use its authority to prevent unfair, 
deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, as appropriate, to enforce 
those obligations against data aggregators. For the reasons discussed 
in part IV.D.2, the CFPB has determined that the certification-based 
approach is appropriate for third parties, including data aggregators, 
and declines to impose additional obligations on third parties in this 
rule.
    As noted above, some commenters urged the CFPB to impose additional 
restrictions on data aggregator use of covered data. The obligations in 
Sec.  1033.421(a) and (c) limit the circumstances in which third 
parties can collect, use and retain covered data, and data aggregators 
must certify to consumers that they will comply with those obligations. 
Among other things, the covered data can only be used as reasonably 
necessary to provide the product or service requested by the consumer 
from the authorized third party. Accordingly, these provisions will 
prevent a data aggregator from using the covered data for its own 
purposes, and the CFPB has determined that additional restrictions on 
data aggregator use of covered data are unnecessary. With respect to 
supervision of data aggregators, as discussed in part IV.5, the CFPB's 
supervisory authority is defined by the CFPA. The CFPB will continue to 
monitor the market, including by using its supervisory authority, and 
will consider whether additional rulemakings are appropriate to expand 
the scope of the CFPB's supervision with respect to part 1033.
Responsibility for Authorization Procedures (Sec.  1033.431(a))
    The CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.431(a) to allow, but not require, a 
data aggregator to perform the third party authorization procedures on 
behalf of the third party. Proposed Sec.  1033.431(a) also provided 
that the third party would remain responsible for compliance with the 
third party authorization procedures and that data aggregators would 
have to comply with the data aggregator certification requirements in 
proposed Sec.  1033.431(c).
    The CFPB preliminarily determined that the third party should be 
responsible for compliance with the third party authorization 
procedures. The CFPB noted that the third party is providing a product 
or service to the consumer and is likely to have the primary 
relationship with the consumer, so the consumer may be more comfortable 
receiving and responding to communications from the third party. The 
third party also likely would be more involved in using and retaining 
covered data and therefore may play a greater role than the data 
aggregator. Moreover, the data aggregator is assisting the third party 
in accessing covered data, so the CFPB preliminarily determined that 
the third party should be responsible for compliance with the third 
party authorization procedures.
    The CFPB noted, however, that some third parties may want to rely 
on data aggregators to perform the authorization procedures on their 
behalf and that, in some circumstances, it may be more efficient for 
data aggregators to do so. Therefore, the CFPB proposed to allow, but 
not require, a data aggregator to perform the authorization procedures 
on behalf of a third party. The CFPB noted that if a data aggregator 
performs the authorization procedures on behalf of the third party, the 
consumer's authorization would grant authority to the third party to 
access covered data on behalf of the consumer. The third party would 
retain the flexibility to discontinue using the data aggregator or 
switch to a different aggregator.
    Several commenters addressed how to allocate responsibility for the 
authorization procedures when a data aggregator is involved. Commenters 
including a bank, a bank trade association, and a nondepository entity 
all supported the proposed approach of assigning responsibility for the 
authorization procedures to the third party seeking authorization but 
permitting the data aggregator to perform the authorization procedures 
on behalf of the third party.
    A number of commenters recommended that the CFPB revise or clarify 
how the authorization procedures can be performed when an authorized 
third party retains a data aggregator. A bank commenter stated that the 
CFPB should clarify which authorization procedures may be performed by 
a data aggregator and which ones must be performed by the authorized 
third party. The bank commenter stated that the authorized third party 
should be responsible for describing the product or service to the 
consumer and providing a certification statement. The bank commenter 
also urged the CFPB to clarify that the requested product or service is 
referring to the product or service offered by the authorized third 
party and not a product or service offered by the data aggregator. The 
bank commenter also stated that the CFPB should clarify that when a 
data aggregator performs the authorization procedures on behalf of the 
authorized third party, the authorized third party remains responsible 
for its own compliance with the specified obligations. The bank 
commenter also urged the CFPB to distinguish the data aggregator's role 
when it is acting as an intermediary on behalf of an authorized third 
party from when it is attempting to become an authorized third party. 
The bank commenter also recommended that when a data aggregator is 
acting on behalf of an authorized third party, the data aggregator must 
fulfill all of its obligations under the rule independent of other 
connections the data aggregator may have fulfilled for the same 
consumer on behalf of a different third party. A credit union commenter 
recommended that the CFPB remove all references to data aggregators 
from the rule and instead require data aggregators to comply with all 
of the requirements of an authorized third party. A third party 
commenter stated that the rule should clarify that data aggregators may 
perform the authorization procedures on their own behalf when they are 
operating as authorized third parties. A research institute commenter 
stated that the rule should encourage data aggregators to take on 
additional roles and responsibilities to support open banking and 
provide better experiences to consumers. The research institute 
commenter urged the CFPB to clarify when data aggregators can become 
authorized third parties.
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is adopting Sec.  
1033.431(a) as proposed. Section 1033.431(a) allows, but does not 
require, a data aggregator to perform the third party authorization 
procedures described in Sec.  1033.401 on behalf of the third party 
seeking authorization under Sec.  1033.401 to access covered data. 
Under Sec.  1033.431(a), the third party seeking authorization remains 
responsible for compliance with the third party authorization 
procedures described in Sec.  1033.401. Data aggregators must comply 
with the data aggregator certification requirements in Sec.  
1033.431(c).

[[Page 90952]]

    As indicated in Sec.  1033.431(a), the authorized third party 
remains responsible for complying with the authorization procedures, 
including certifying to the consumer that it will comply with the 
obligations in Sec.  1033.421. However, the data aggregator may perform 
the certification procedures on behalf of the authorized third party. 
If the data aggregator performs the authorization procedures on behalf 
of the authorized third party, the data aggregator must complete the 
authorization procedures for the authorized third party and provide the 
authorization disclosure with the content required in Sec.  
1033.411(b). The data aggregator must also obtain the consumer's 
express informed consent for the authorized third party to access 
covered data on behalf of the consumer as required in Sec.  
1033.401(c). As discussed below in connection with Sec.  1033.431(c), 
the data aggregator must also certify that it will comply with the 
certification requirements specified in Sec.  1033.431(c).
    The CFPB recognizes that third parties may play different roles in 
different transactions. A third party may be a data aggregator in one 
transaction and an authorized third party in a different transaction. 
However, a third party cannot perform both roles in the same 
transaction. If a third party is serving as a data aggregator, it 
cannot collect, use, and retain the consumer's covered data for its own 
purposes. It is limited to accessing the information only as reasonably 
necessary for providing the product or service requested by the 
consumer from the authorized third party. When a data aggregator 
performs the authorization procedures on behalf of an authorized third 
party, those authorization procedures apply only to that authorized 
third party. If the data aggregator is assisting a second authorized 
third party in accessing covered data from the same consumer, the 
second authorized third party or the data aggregator acting on behalf 
of that second authorized third party must perform the authorization 
procedures separately for that second authorized third party.
    The CFPB concludes that it is appropriate to identify and adopt 
specific provisions applicable for data aggregators separately from 
authorized third parties. Data aggregators perform a different role 
than authorized third parties, and the CFPB has determined that the 
rule should highlight that the authorized third party is responsible 
for obtaining the consumer's authorization to access the consumer's 
data.
Disclosure of the Name of the Aggregator (Sec.  1033.431(b))
    The CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.431(b) to require that the 
authorization disclosure include the name of any data aggregator that 
will assist the third party seeking authorization under proposed Sec.  
1033.401 with accessing covered data and a brief description of the 
services the data aggregator will provide. The proposed rule stated 
that, unlike other downstream parties that may access a consumer's 
covered data after a third party has completed the authorization 
procedures, a data aggregator is typically known to the third party at 
the time of authorization and a consumer may directly interact with a 
data aggregator when the data aggregator performs the authorization 
procedures on behalf of the third party. Therefore, the CFPB 
preliminarily determined that identifying and describing the services 
of a data aggregator would reduce consumer confusion and better equip 
consumers to provide informed consent when authorizing data access. The 
proposed rule requested comment on any obstacles to including a data 
aggregator's name in the authorization disclosure.
    A consumer advocate commenter and a credit union commenter 
supported including information about the data aggregator in the 
authorization disclosure to provide sufficient transparency. The credit 
union commenter requested that both the legal and trade names of the 
data aggregator be included in the authorization disclosure.
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing Sec.  
1033.431(b) as proposed. Including the data aggregator name and a 
description of the data aggregator's services in the authorization 
disclosure provides consumers with a key term of access that may reduce 
consumer confusion and better equip consumers to provide informed 
consent. Commenters did not raise concerns with this approach.
    The CFPB is not modifying Sec.  1033.431(b) to require the 
inclusion of a data aggregator's legal and trade names, as suggested by 
one commenter. The final rule does not require authorized third parties 
to include their own legal and trade names, and it would be 
inconsistent to require authorized third parties to provide the legal 
and trade names of data aggregators. Additionally, including multiple 
names for a single data aggregator would make the authorization 
disclosure longer, and it is not clear that this added information 
would make a significant impact on a consumer's ability to identify the 
data aggregator. Finally, as discussed above, the CFPB is finalizing a 
requirement that the name of the data aggregator must be ``readily 
understandable'' to consumers, which will help ensure that consumers 
are able to identify the data aggregator.
Aggregator Certification (Sec.  1033.431(c))
    The CFPB proposed in Sec.  1033.431(c) that when a third party 
seeking authorization under Sec.  1033.401 will use a data aggregator 
to assist with accessing covered data on behalf of a consumer, the data 
aggregator must certify to the consumer that it agrees to the 
conditions on accessing the consumer's data in proposed Sec.  
1033.421(a) through (f) and the condition in proposed Sec.  
1033.421(h)(3) upon receipt of the notice described in proposed Sec.  
1033.421(h)(2) before accessing the consumer's data. However, the data 
aggregator would not have been required to certify that it would 
provide a revocation method or certify to the requirements related to 
ensuring consumers informed.
    The CFPB explained it was proposing to require data aggregators to 
certify that they agree to these conditions because, when a third party 
uses a data aggregator, the aggregator may play a significant role in 
accessing the consumer's data. Data aggregators may, among other 
things, process the consumer's login credentials, obtain the consumer's 
data from the data provider, and transmit the consumer's data to the 
third party. The CFPB stated that, if data aggregators were not 
required to agree to these conditions, there could be a significant gap 
in the protections afforded to consumers.
    In addition, as with the third party's certification statement, the 
CFPB wanted the consumer to receive a clear statement of the conditions 
that the data aggregator must follow. The certification statement to 
the consumer would help consumers, the CFPB, and other regulators to 
enforce the obligations to which data aggregators would be required to 
certify. The CFPB stated that these considerations are equally 
applicable to data aggregators that are retained by the authorized 
third party after the consumer has completed the authorization 
procedures, so proposed Sec.  1033.431(c) would require those data 
aggregators to also provide a certification to the consumer.
    The CFPB also proposed in Sec.  1033.431(c) that any data 
aggregator that is retained by the authorized third party after the 
consumer has completed the authorization procedures must also satisfy 
this aggregator certification

[[Page 90953]]

requirement. For this requirement to be satisfied, either (1) the third 
party seeking authorization under proposed Sec.  1033.401 must include 
this aggregator certification in the authorization disclosure described 
in proposed Sec.  1033.411 it provides the consumer, or (2) the data 
aggregator must provide to the consumer a separate certification. The 
CFPB stated that, for example, the aggregator certification requirement 
in proposed Sec.  1033.431(c) would be satisfied where the 
authorization disclosure includes a statement that both the third party 
and the data aggregator agree to the applicable third party obligations 
described in proposed Sec.  1033.421. The CFPB further stated that this 
requirement would also be satisfied where the data aggregator provides 
the certification to the consumer in a separate communication. When a 
data aggregator is retained by the authorized third party after the 
consumer has completed the authorization procedures, proposed Sec.  
1033.431(c) would not require the consumer to receive a new 
authorization disclosure or provide consent. The CFPB sought comment on 
whether to include formatting or language access requirements for an 
aggregator certification that is provided in a separate communication 
from the authorization disclosure.
    Regarding the format of the separate data aggregator certification, 
a consumer advocate commenter requested that the CFPB include the 
following formatting and language access requirements in the final 
rule: require model forms, including mobile-friendly versions; require 
provision in any language that the authorization was required to be 
provided in; set a maximum reading level; and specify timing.
    Regarding content of the data aggregator certification, several 
bank commenters and a consumer advocate commenter requested that data 
aggregators provide a revocation mechanism to ensure that consumers 
have the ability to revoke authorization with any entity involved in 
the data sharing transaction. Several bank commenters and a consumer 
advocate commenter also requested that data aggregators comply with the 
requirements related to ensuring consumers are informed in Sec.  
1033.421(g) given data aggregators' significant involvement in the 
handling of consumer data. These commenters stated that, because of 
data aggregators' significant role, consumers may want to contact data 
aggregators with questions about the services the data aggregator 
provides.
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing Sec.  
1033.431(c) with certain modifications. The CFPB is finalizing the 
required content of the aggregator certification in the introductory 
text of Sec.  1033.431(c) with non-substantive changes. Consistent with 
the proposal, the CFPB is not requiring data aggregators to certify to 
comply with Sec.  1033.421(g) (the certification related to ensuring 
consumers are informed) because this would require the data aggregator 
to significantly increase coordination with the third party, such as by 
finding out with which downstream parties the third party has shared 
the consumer's covered data. This would result in little benefit to 
consumers because consumers would already receive this information from 
third parties. Requiring data aggregators to certify to comply with the 
Sec.  1033.421(g) requirements could also result in consumers receiving 
unwanted duplicative information, such as two copies of the 
authorization disclosure (one from the third party and one from the 
data aggregator). The CFPB is also not requiring a data aggregator to 
certify that it will provide consumers with a revocation mechanism 
because a data aggregator would potentially have to create a consumer-
facing interface to create a revocation mechanism which is not 
otherwise required by final rule. However, data aggregators are 
permitted to provide a revocation mechanism if they choose to do so.
    The final rule includes non-substantive changes to the introductory 
text to Sec.  1033.431(c), including, in the list of provisions that 
must be included in the certification, changing the reference from 
Sec.  1033.421(h)(3) to Sec.  1033.421(i) because, as described above, 
the final rule includes a new Sec.  1033.421(i) that includes 
provisions from proposed Sec.  1033.421(b)(4) and (h)(3). The 
introductory text of proposed Sec.  1033.431(c) stated that any data 
aggregator that is retained by the authorized third party after the 
consumer has completed the authorization procedures must also satisfy 
this requirement. This substantive requirement is moved to final Sec.  
1033.431(c)(2) to clarify that the certification for a data aggregator 
retained by an authorized third party after the consumer has completed 
the authorization procedures would have to be provided pursuant to 
Sec.  1033.431(c)(2).
    The CFPB is finalizing as proposed Sec.  1033.431(c)(1), requiring 
that if the data aggregator does not provide its certification to the 
consumer as set forth in Sec.  1033.431(c)(2), the third party seeking 
authorization under Sec.  1033.401 must include the data aggregator's 
certification in the authorization disclosure described in Sec.  
1033.411.
    Final Sec.  1033.431(c)(2) provides that, consistent with the 
general requirements for the authorization disclosure, the data 
aggregator must provide its certification to the consumer, 
electronically or in writing, separate from the authorization 
disclosure. As is also consistent with the requirements for the 
authorization disclosure and for the reasons explained above in part 
IV.D.3 in connection with the requirements for the authorization 
disclosure, the certification must be in the same language as the 
authorization disclosure and must be clear, conspicuous, and segregated 
from other material. The final rule does not require model forms, 
reading level, or timing requirements for the aggregator certification, 
consistent with the final rule's approach to the authorization 
disclosure in Sec.  1033.411(a), described above.
    Final Sec.  1033.431(c)(2) also provides that the name of any data 
aggregator in the certification must be readily understandable to the 
consumer. As explained above in the discussion of Sec.  1033.411(a), 
this requirement will help ensure that consumers are able to easily 
identify the entities in the certification. As noted above, final Sec.  
1033.431(c)(2) also provides that if, after the consumer has completed 
the authorization procedures, the authorized third party retains a data 
aggregator to assist with accessing covered data on behalf of the 
consumer, this data aggregator must provide its certification in 
accordance with Sec.  1033.431(c)(2).
6. Policies and Procedures for Third Party Record Retention (Sec.  
1033.441)
    Proposed Sec.  1033.441(a) would have required a third party that 
is a covered person or service provider, as defined in 12 U.S.C. 
5481(6) and (26), to establish and maintain written policies and 
procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure retention of records 
that are evidence of compliance with the requirements of proposed 
subpart D. Under proposed Sec.  1033.441(b), records required under 
proposed Sec.  1033.441(a) would have to be retained for a reasonable 
period of time, not less than three years after a third party obtains 
the consumer's most recent authorization under proposed Sec.  
1033.401(a).
    Proposed Sec.  1033.441(b) based the retention period on the date 
of the consumer's most recent authorization because that event would 
determine when compliance with proposed subpart D would begin to be 
required. The CFPB explained that the minimum three-year period should 
be sufficient

[[Page 90954]]

for the CFPB and others to evaluate compliance with respect to any 
given authorization because proposed Sec.  1033.421(b)(3) would require 
third parties to obtain a new authorization each year. The CFPB 
clarified that proposed Sec.  1033.421(b)(4) and (h)(3) were not 
designed to impact the requirement for a third party to maintain 
policies and procedures to retain records for a reasonable period 
proposed in Sec.  1033.441, noting that proposed Sec.  1033.441 covered 
records that evidence compliance with proposed subpart D. In contrast, 
proposed Sec.  1033.421(b)(4) and (h)(3) covered data collected from 
data providers to provide a requested product or service.
    Under proposed Sec.  1033.441(c), a third party covered under 
proposed Sec.  1033.441(a) would have flexibility to determine its 
policies and procedures in light of the size, nature, and complexity of 
its activities. The CFPB explained that this flexibility would help 
third parties avoid conflicts with other legal obligations (including 
other record retention and data security obligations), manage data 
security risks, and minimize unnecessary impacts.
    To mitigate the risk that the flexibility of proposed Sec.  
1033.441(c) might result in the absence of critical evidence, proposed 
Sec.  1033.441(e)(1) and (2) would have identified examples of records 
that would need to be retained. Specifically, proposed Sec.  
1033.441(e) would have provided that records retained pursuant to 
policies and procedures required under proposed Sec.  1033.441 must 
include, without limitation (1) a copy of the authorization disclosure 
that is signed or otherwise agreed to by the consumer and reflects the 
date of the consumer's signature or other written or electronic consent 
and a record of actions taken by the consumer, including actions taken 
through a data provider, to revoke the third party's authorization; and 
(2) with respect to a data aggregator covered under proposed Sec.  
1033.441(a), a copy of any data aggregator certification statement 
provided to the consumer separate from the authorization disclosure 
pursuant to proposed Sec.  1033.431(c)(2).
    Proposed Sec.  1033.441(d) would have required a third party 
covered under proposed Sec.  1033.441(a) to periodically review its 
policies and procedures and update them as appropriate to ensure their 
continued effectiveness to evidence compliance with the requirements of 
proposed subpart D.
    The CFPB explained that the flexible policies and procedures 
approach of proposed Sec.  1033.441 would be consistent with the SBREFA 
Panel's recommendation that the CFPB evaluate record retention 
requirements for consistency with other requirements and the avoidance 
of unnecessary data security risks, while still ensuring all evidence 
of compliance by a third party is retained.
    The CFPB requested comment on the proposed length of the retention 
period and whether it should be based on another event, such as the 
termination of a third party's authorization or a third party's request 
for information from a data provider. The CFPB also requested comment 
on whether the final rule should identify other examples of records to 
be retained. Additionally, the CFPB requested comment on whether 
additional guidance was needed on the potential intersections of the 
record retention requirements in proposed Sec.  1033.441 and 
limitations on retention in proposed Sec.  1033.421(b)(4) and (h)(3).
    Commenters generally supported the proposed requirement for third 
parties to establish and maintain policies and procedures reasonably 
designed to ensure retention of records that evidence compliance with 
proposed subpart D. One bank industry group supported measuring the 
retention period beginning at the time the third party obtains the 
consumer's most recent authorization. Another such group supported the 
three-year record retention requirement. On the other hand, some bank 
industry commenters suggested that the retention period should be two 
years. These commenters stated that this would make the retention 
requirement consistent with similar requirements to which data 
providers are already subject under Regulation E and Regulation Z. 
Further, they stated that the additional year does not pose any benefit 
to consumers and that the additional length to retain presents 
unnecessary security risks.
    For the reasons discussed herein, the CFPB is finalizing Sec.  
1033.441(a) through (d) as proposed. The CFPB is finalizing Sec.  
1033.441(e) generally as proposed, with minor non-substantive edits for 
consistency with other revisions elsewhere in the final rule. 
Specifically, records retained pursuant to policies and procedures 
required under Sec.  1033.441 must include, without limitation: (1) a 
copy of the authorization disclosure that is signed by the consumer 
electronically or in writing and reflects the date of the consumer's 
signature and a record of actions taken by the consumer, including 
actions taken through a data provider or another third party, to revoke 
the third party's authorization; and (2) with respect to a data 
aggregator covered under Sec.  1033.441(a), a copy of any data 
aggregator certification statement that was provided to the consumer 
pursuant to Sec.  1033.431(c)(2). The CFPB expects that in order to 
ensure accuracy, record integrity, and to preserve the ability to 
access the signed authorization disclosure, the authorization 
disclosure and the electronic signature establishing consumer consent 
cannot as a matter of regular course be provided orally and still 
satisfy all of the final rule's requirements.
    Section 1033.441 is authorized under CFPA section 1022(b)(1) 
because it will enable the CFPB and others to evaluate a third party's 
compliance with subpart D and would prevent evasion. To the extent that 
Sec.  1033.441 applies to CFPB-supervised nondepository covered 
persons, it is additionally authorized by CFPA section 1024(b)(7) 
because it will facilitate supervision of such persons and enable the 
CFPB to assess and detect risks to consumers.
    The CFPB determines that the three-year length of the retention 
requirement in Sec.  1033.441(b) is appropriate and the CFPB declines 
to align it with the retention requirements in Regulation E and 
Regulation Z, as requested by some commenters. The retention 
requirements under Regulation E and Regulation Z are substantively 
different from those in Sec.  1033.441. Records required under 
Regulation E and Regulation Z relate to regulated entities' disclosures 
to consumers pertaining to electronic fund transfers and consumer 
credit, respectively. Such disclosures to individual consumers are 
likely to be stale after a period of two years. Three years of records 
contemplated by Sec.  1033.441 will allow for analysis of a third 
party's compliance with part 1033, including patterns in third party 
actions in requesting access to a data provider's interface and the 
authorizing consumer's data over time. Moreover, based on the CFPB's 
supervisory and enforcement experience, a three-year retention period 
is an appropriate amount of time to enable the CFPB and other 
enforcement agencies to examine or conduct enforcement investigations.

12 CFR Part 1001

Providing Financial Data Processing Products or Services (Sec.  
1001.2(b))
    Proposed Sec.  1001.2(b) would have defined providing financial 
data processing products or services by any technological means, 
including processing, storing, aggregating, or transmitting financial 
or banking data, alone or in connection with another product or 
service, as a financial

[[Page 90955]]

product or service under the CFPA. The proposed provision included 
certain limited exclusions. After considering public comments, the CFPB 
is finalizing the provision as proposed.
Statutory Framework
    Under CFPA section 1002(15)(A)(xi)(II), the CFPB may issue a 
regulation to define as a financial product or service ``such other 
financial product or service'' that the CFPB finds is ``permissible for 
a bank or for a financial holding company to offer or to provide under 
any provision of a Federal law or regulation applicable to a bank or a 
financial holding company, and has, or likely will have, a material 
impact on consumers.'' The CFPB is issuing Sec.  1001.2(b) pursuant to 
this authority. In turn, under the CFPA, a financial product or service 
under Sec.  1001.2(b) would qualify as a ``consumer financial product 
or service'' under CFPA section 1002(5)(A) if it ``is offered or 
provided for use by consumers primarily for personal, family, or 
household purposes.''
    As the CFPB explained in the proposal, the activities in Sec.  
1001.2(b) would have already been within scope of the CFPA's definition 
of financial product or service. Specifically, CFPA section 
1002(15)(A)(vii) defines as a financial product or service ``providing 
payments and other financial data processing to a consumer by any 
technological means.'' The language of this provision extends beyond 
payment processing to broadly include other forms of financial data 
processing. Accordingly, consumers already receive the protections of 
the CFPA when entities process their potentially sensitive data, 
whether payments or any other category of financial or banking 
data.\122\ On this issue, a trade association of the nonbank money 
services industry submitted a comment agreeing that the activities in 
Sec.  1001.2(b) are already within the scope of the CFPA. Consistent 
with the proposed rule, the CFPB is using its rulemaking authority 
under CFPA section 1002(15)(A)(xi)(II) to provide even greater 
certainty regarding CFPA coverage.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ Many of these activities could also fall within other 
categories of financial product or service. E.g., CFPA section 
1002(15)(A)(ix), 12 U.S.C. 5481(15)(A)(ix) (``collecting, analyzing, 
maintaining, or providing consumer report information or other 
account information'' under specified circumstances).
    \123\ Accordingly, the scope of Sec.  1001.2(b) is independent 
of how CFPA section 1002(15)(A)(xi)(II) is construed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overview of Sec.  1001.2(b)
    By conferring authority on the CFPB to define additional financial 
products or services, the CFPA accounts for the possibility that the 
enumerated list of financial products and services in CFPA section 
1002(15)(A)(i) through (x) may not completely capture the markets for 
financial products or services that are significant for consumers, 
especially as market developments lead to emerging concerns for 
consumers. As already noted, the final rule has the potential to expand 
access to personal financial data and subject such data to a wider 
variety of data processing activities. The CFPB is adding to the 
definition of financial product or service the category of ``providing 
financial data processing products or services'' to ensure that 
activities involving consumers' potentially sensitive personal 
financial information are subject to the CFPA and its prohibition on 
unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices to the full extent 
authorized by Congress.\124\ The definition includes examples to 
illustrate the activities that fall within the term financial data 
processing. Section 1001.2(b) clarifies that the financial data 
processing products or services that are covered by the definition 
could be offered either alone or in connection with another financial 
or nonfinancial product or service, and so it does not cease to be 
covered simply because it is offered in connection with the 
latter.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536.
    \125\ The CFPB notes that the scope of a ``covered consumer 
financial product or service,'' as defined under Sec.  1033.111(b) 
for purposes of part 1033, is not dependent on adopting Sec.  
1001.2(b). The products and services listed in Sec.  1033.111(b) are 
already covered by existing statutory provisions such as CFPA 
sections 1002(15)(A)(i), (iv), (v), and (vii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statutory Factors
    Consistent with the proposal, the CFPB has determined that Sec.  
1001.2(b) meets the two factors set forth in CFPA section 
1002(15)(A)(xi)(II). First, these activities are permissible for 
financial holding companies under the Federal Reserve Board's 
Regulation Y and for national banks under OCC regulations.\126\ Both 
financial holding companies and national banks are permitted to engage, 
among other things, in data processing, data storage, and data 
transmission services by any technological means, so long as the data 
to be processed are financial, banking, or economic.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ 12 CFR 225.28(b)(14), 7.5006(a); see also 68 FR 68493, 
68495-96 (Dec. 9, 2003) (explaining that 12 CFR 225.28(b)(14) 
permits bank holding companies to engage in a ``wide range'' of data 
processing activities, including bill pay services, financial data 
processing for marketing purposes, and delivering financial products 
or services over the internet, among other activities).
    \127\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No commenter disputed that the defined activities satisfy the first 
CFPA factor of being permissible for financial holding companies or 
banks. A research institute commenter did express concern that the 
definition could encompass activities that, in the commenter's view, 
are not financial. This commenter advocated that the CFPB borrow a test 
for financial activities from certain FTC regulations implementing the 
GLBA. However, this commenter did not argue that the financial data 
processing products or services covered by Sec.  1001.2(b) are not 
permissible for financial holding companies or banks, which is the 
standard selected by Congress in the context of the CFPA. The commenter 
did not explain why the CFPB should use a test from a different 
regulatory framework instead of the CFPA standard, and accordingly the 
CFPB is relying on the CFPA standard.
    With respect to the second CFPA factor, the processing of personal 
financial information has, or is likely to have, a material impact on 
consumers. As already discussed in the proposal and above in part I, 
use of personal financial data has become an even more important part 
of consumer finance than it was at the time that the CFPA was enacted 
in 2010. The processing of personal financial data, including storing, 
aggregating, and transmitting such data, has the potential to provide 
benefits to consumers but also expose them to a number of substantial 
risks. Financial data processing activities that are provided to 
consumers, assuming they are not already included within the definition 
of a financial product or service under CFPA section 1002(15)(A)(vii), 
raise the same type of consumer protection concerns as activities that 
do fall within this definition.
    No commenter disputed the material impact of the activities covered 
by Sec.  1001.2(b) on consumers. A bank expressed support for Sec.  
1001.2(b) as regulating nonbanks in a like manner as banks. A bank 
trade association argued that the provision should do more to cover 
data aggregators. However, the CFPB notes that Sec.  1001.2(b) includes 
aggregating financial or banking data as an example of a financial data 
processing product or service.
Exclusions
    Section 1001.2(b) states that it does not apply where the financial 
data processing is offered or provided by a

[[Page 90956]]

person who, by operation of CFPA section 1002(15)(A)(vii)(I) or (II), 
is not a covered person. As background, CFPA section 1002(15)(A)(vii) 
provides that a person shall not be deemed to be a covered person with 
respect to financial data processing solely because the person engages 
in certain narrowly prescribed processing activities. CFPA section 
1002(15)(A)(vii)(I) excludes from coverage certain merchants, retailers 
or sellers of non-financial products or services that are solely 
engaged in certain activities related to initiating payment 
instructions, whereas CFPA section 1002(15)(A)(vii)(II) excludes 
persons that solely provide access to a host server for websites. The 
CFPB is paralleling these exclusions in Sec.  1001.2(b).
    A research institute commenter argued that Sec.  1001.2(b) should 
be amended to reflect CFPA section 1002(15)(C)(ii), which excludes 
``electronic conduit services'' (as further defined in CFPA section 
1002(11)) from the statutory definition of ``financial product or 
service.'' However, it is unnecessary to specifically amend Sec.  
1001.2(b) along these lines, because, like other categories of 
financial product or service, Sec.  1001.2(b) remains subject to the 
exclusion for electronic conduit services in CFPA section 
1002(15)(C)(ii).\128\ A trade association generally supported 
clarifying that financial data processing is a financial product or 
service under the CFPA. But it argued that ``transmitting'' financial 
data should be excluded from Sec.  1001.2(b), because the trade 
association viewed it as distinct from financial data processing. 
However, financial data transmission is expressly covered by the 
applicable longstanding provisions of Regulation Y and OCC regulations, 
and it is within the scope of the CFPB's statutory authority if it is 
not an electronic conduit service as defined in CFPA section 1002(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ See 12 CFR 1001.2 (introductory language stating that 
definitions apply except ``as otherwise provided in [the CFPA]''). 
This commenter also argued that Sec.  1001.2(b) should be amended to 
exclude certain persons who are excluded from the definition of 
``service provider'' under CFPA section 1002(26)(a)(ii). That 
exclusion from the definition of ``service provider'' has 
similarities to the exclusion of electronic conduit services from 
the definition of ``financial product or service.'' However, the 
commenter did not explain why the exclusion from the distinct 
statutory definition of ``service provider'' should be imported into 
the definition of ``financial product or service,'' and the CFPB is 
not aware of a reason to do so. If the ``service provider'' 
exclusion applies to an entity, it would not be a service provider 
under the terms of the statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another trade association supported covering certain ``retail'' 
financial data services that are ``consumer facing,'' but it advocated 
excluding what it described as ``non-retail'' services. The trade 
association argued that covering ``non-retail'' entities would reduce 
competition by limiting those entities' ability to efficiently use 
data. However, the CFPB cannot discern from the comment why the 
commenter believes this to be the case. The CFPB notes that Congress 
has already established a boundary for a ``consumer financial product 
or service'' based on whether the product or service is ``offered or 
provided for use by consumers primarily for personal, family, or 
household purposes'' under CFPA section 1002(5)(A). Within that 
boundary, assuming a given financial data processing product or service 
would not have already been covered by CFPA section 1002(15)(A)(vii), 
the principal consequence of Sec.  1001.2(b) is to protect consumers 
from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices under the CFPA. 
The CFPB does not agree that Congress's prohibition on subjecting 
consumers to unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices interferes 
with fair competition.\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ E.g., CFPA section 1031(c)(1)(B) (citing countervailing 
benefits to consumers and to competition as a factor when 
identifying unfair acts or practices).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, a consumer advocate commenter requested that the CFPB 
clarify that when an entity is covered by the CFPA through Sec.  
1001.2(b), that does not imply the entity is not covered by the Fair 
Credit Reporting Act. However, CFPA coverage does not foreclose an 
entity from being covered by other laws the CFPB administers, so the 
CFPB does not see a need to amend Sec.  1001.2(b) to address the stated 
concern.

V. Effective and Compliance Dates

    The effective date of the final rule is 60 days after the rule is 
published in the Federal Register. The CFPB proposed this effective 
date and did not receive any comments. As set forth in 12 CFR 1033.121, 
data providers must comply with the requirements in subparts B and C 
beginning April 1, 2026; April 1, 2027; April 1, 2028; April 1, 2029; 
or April 1, 2030, depending on the criteria set forth in Sec.  
1033.121(c). See part IV.A.5 for a discussion of the comments received 
with respect to compliance dates. In the case of the amendment to part 
1001, the proposal explained that the activities covered by the 
amendment are already within the scope of the CFPA's definition of 
financial product or service, and it stated that no compliance date is 
necessary.\130\ The CFPB received no comments on the implementation 
period for the amendment to part 1001, and accordingly it is finalizing 
the 60-day effective date as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ Even assuming the activities covered by the amendment to 
part 1001 were not already within the scope of the CFPA's definition 
of financial product or service, the CFPB notes that it has no 
reason to believe a 60-day implementation period would be 
insufficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. CFPA Section 1022(b) Analysis

A. Statement of Need

    In section 1033 of the CFPA, Congress authorized and directed the 
CFPB to adopt regulations governing consumers' data access rights. The 
CFPB is issuing this final rule to implement CFPA section 1033 with 
respect to certain covered persons under the CFPA. The CFPB is also 
relying on other CFPA authorities for specific aspects of the rule.
    Because the primary purpose of this rule is to implement section 
1033 of the CFPA, the role of this CFPA section 1022(b) analysis is to 
evaluate the benefits, costs, and impacts of the specific policies 
within the rule and potential alternatives to those policies. This 
Statement of Need summarizes the CFPB's understanding of the gaps 
between Congress's intended outcome for consumers' financial data 
access rights and current practices, and describes the overall goals of 
the rule in closing those gaps. The remainder of the CFPA section 
1022(b) analysis discusses the benefits, costs, and impacts of the 
specific provisions, and potential alternatives.
    CFPA section 1033 requires data providers to make financial data 
available in electronic form upon request to consumers and third 
parties authorized to act on their behalf. Today, consumer financial 
data may be accessed by third parties through methods that raise data 
security and privacy risks, and consumers may have little to no 
knowledge of or control over how the data are used by third parties 
that have access to it. In addition, the market has been slow to 
implement secure and efficient methods for sharing data with third 
parties, and data providers may not be motivated to provide in a timely 
and readily usable manner all the data fields that consumers may want 
to access. The result is that access to consumer financial data can be 
unreliable, or that financial data held by some providers may be 
unavailable to some consumers or their authorized third parties.
    When data are made available, there is a general lack of 
consistency across data providers in the terms and conditions for 
access and the technical specifications used. This creates

[[Page 90957]]

inefficiencies for market participants, and often entails substantial 
levels of cost.
    This rule aims to (1) expand consumers' access to their financial 
data across a wide range of financial institutions, (2) ensure privacy 
and data security for consumers by limiting the collection, use, and 
retention of data that are not needed to provide the consumer's 
requested service, and (3) push for greater efficiency and reliability 
of data access across the industry to reduce industry costs, facilitate 
competition, and support the development of new products and services 
beneficial to consumers.

B. Data and Evidence

    The CFPB's analysis of costs, benefits, and impacts is informed by 
data from a range of sources. These include data collected in the 
Provider Collection and Aggregator Collection,\131\ as well as data 
obtained from other regulatory agencies \132\ and publicly available 
sources.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ For information about the data collected in the Provider 
Collection and Aggregator Collection, respectively, see Consumer 
Fin. Prot. Bureau, Generic Order for Data Providers, https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_generic-1022-order-data-provider_2023-01.pdf; and Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, Generic Order 
for Data Aggregators, https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_generic-1022-order-data-aggregator_2023-01.pdf (both last 
visited Oct. 16, 2024). Because data providers and data aggregators 
vary substantially in size and business practices, the data from 
these collections are likely not representative of the market as a 
whole. The data are informative about the practices of some large 
data providers and a selection of data aggregators and third 
parties.
    \132\ In particular, these include entity-level FFIEC and NCUA 
data on characteristics of depository institutions.
    \133\ The analysis is informed by academic research papers, 
reports on research by industry and trade groups, practitioner 
studies, and comment letters received by the CFPB. Where used, these 
specific sources are cited in this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2016, the CFPB released and received comments on an RFI on 
consumer rights to access financial data. In 2020, the CFPB held a 
symposium titled ``Consumer Access to Financial Records'' and released 
a summary of the proceedings. Later in 2020, the CFPB released and 
received comments on an ANPR. In 2023, the CFPB convened a SBREFA Panel 
to gather input from small businesses and the Panel issued the SBREFA 
Panel Report.\134\ The CFPB also solicited and received comments from 
other industry participants on the SBREFA Outline.\135\ Later in 2023, 
the CFPB issued its proposed rule, and received comments from the 
public in response.\136\ In addition to these sources of information, 
these impact analyses are informed by consultations with other 
regulatory agencies, industry, consumer advocates, and researchers. 
Part II.A further describes the CFPB's outreach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, Final Report of the Small 
Business Review Panel on the CFPB's Proposals and Alternatives Under 
Consideration for the Required Rulemaking on Personal Financial Data 
Rights (Mar. 30, 2023), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_1033-data-rights-rule-sbrefa-panel-report_2023-03.pdf.
    \135\ Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, CFPB Kicks Off Personal 
Financial Data Rights Rulemaking (Oct. 27, 2022), https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-kicks-off-personal-financial-data-rights-rulemaking/.
    \136\ See 88 FR 74796 (Oct. 31, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the types of financial data and access generally covered by 
this rule, the information obtained through the Provider Collection and 
Aggregator Collection allow the CFPB to estimate: the number of data 
providers consumer-authorized data are accessed from; the number of 
third parties accessing or using consumer-authorized data; the number 
of consumers granting third parties permission to access data on their 
behalf; the total number of permissioned access attempts; and 
information about the technologies used and the purposes of the 
permissioned data access. The Provider Collection and Aggregator 
Collection also allow the CFPB to estimate the operational costs of 
providing direct and third party data access, and the costs of 
establishing data access agreements. To maintain the confidentiality of 
the respondents to these data collections, the CFPB provides 
approximate or bounded estimates derived from these data, rather than 
precise totals or figures specific to any one respondent.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ The CFPB treats the information received in the Provider 
Collection and the Aggregator Collection in accordance with its 
confidentiality regulations at 12 CFR 1070.40 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the proposal, the CFPB requested additional information or data 
that could refine these estimates. Where commenters provided such 
information, it is discussed in the relevant part and incorporated into 
the analysis and estimates.
    For data on the number and characteristics of covered depository 
institutions, the CFPB relies on data from FFIEC and NCUA Call 
Reports.\138\ These sources provide quarterly information on the number 
of institutions, dollar amount of institution-level assets, number of 
deposit accounts, dollar volume of credit card lending, and other 
characteristics. Notably, these data provide information on the number 
of deposit accounts insured by the FDIC or NCUA, which are imperfect, 
but nonetheless the best available proxy for the number of covered 
financial accounts held by depositories. While this measure includes 
covered depository accounts, it also includes business accounts and 
other accounts that are not covered by the rule. It also does not 
include certain covered financial accounts, such as credit card 
accounts and non-bank products. The FFIEC data also provide information 
on the websites and digital banking capabilities for banks. The CFPB 
supplemented this information with comparable information in NCUA 
Profile (Form 4501A) data for credit unions.\139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ See Fed. Fin. Insts. Examination Council, Central Data 
Repository's Public Data Distribution, https://cdr.ffiec.gov/ (last 
visited Oct. 16, 2024); and Nat'l Credit Union Admin., Credit Union 
and Corporate Call Report Data, https://ncua.gov/analysis/credit-union-corporate-call-report-data (last updated Sept. 5, 2024).
    \139\ See Nat'l Credit Union Admin., CUOnline, https://ncua.gov/regulation-supervision/regulatory-reporting/cuonline (last updated 
Sept. 18, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate costs to small entities of the provisions, the CFPB 
relies on information gathered from the SBREFA process and from 
comments on the proposal. This includes written feedback on the SBREFA 
Outline submitted by small entity representatives, the discussions at 
the SBREFA Panel summarized in the SBREFA Panel Report, and comments on 
the proposal.

C. Coverage of the Rule

    Part VII.B.4 provides a discussion of the number and types of 
entities affected by the rule. Relative to the proposal, the most 
substantial change in coverage is that depositories with assets below 
specified size standards defined by the SBA are not covered as data 
providers under the rule.

D. Baseline for Consideration of Costs and Benefits

    In evaluating the rule's benefits, costs, and impacts, the CFPB 
considers the impacts against a baseline in which the CFPB takes no 
regulatory action. This baseline includes existing regulations, State 
laws, and the current state of the market. In addition, because the 
market is still developing rapidly, the analysis assumes that the 
market trends toward greater data access and increased adoption of 
developer interfaces would continue under the baseline, but assumes no 
change in the State laws and regulations currently in effect that are 
related to consumers' data access rights for either direct access or 
access through third parties.
    A large and growing number of consumers currently access their 
financial data through consumer-

[[Page 90958]]

authorized third parties. This access is provided by a range of 
technologies, including credential-free APIs, APIs that require third 
parties to retain consumer credentials (credential-based APIs), and 
credential-based access through consumer-facing digital banking 
interfaces such as online banking websites or mobile applications 
(screen scraping). As discussed in part I.B, with respect to the state 
of the open banking system, the CFPB estimates that more than 100 
million consumers have used consumer-authorized data access, 
authorizing thousands of third parties to access their financial data 
at thousands of data providers, often through intermediaries such as 
data aggregators.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ Unless described otherwise, the estimates in this part 
VI.D are derived from the total numbers of consumers, connections, 
and access attempts reported by data providers in the Provider 
Collection and third parties in the Aggregator Collection. These 
estimates are necessarily approximate, as the CFPB aims to protect 
the confidentiality of the respondents, account for the substantial 
share of consumer-authorized data sharing that is not captured by 
the respondents, and account for the likely potential overlap in 
counts for consumers, connections, and access attempts that involve 
respondents to both the Provider Collection and the Aggregator 
Collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In total, the CFPB estimates that there were between 50 billion and 
100 billion total consumer-authorized access attempts in 2022.\141\ 
Usage has grown substantially in recent years, as the annual number of 
consumer-authorized access attempts approximately doubled from 2019 to 
2022, and usage has continued to grow since 2022.\142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ An access attempt is defined here as an individual 
instance in which a single consumer-authorized third party requests 
or attempts to pull data about a single consumer's accounts from a 
single data provider's systems. Not all attempts will lead to a 
successful data transfer, but the number of access attempts is used 
as an indicator for the overall size and growth of the open banking 
system.
    \142\ See Fin. Data Exch., Financial Data Exchange (FDX) Reports 
76 Million Consumer Accounts Use FDX API (Mar. 13, 2024), https://www.financialdataexchange.org/FDX/News/Press-Releases/Financial_Data_Exchange__FDX__Reports_76_Million_Consumers_Use_FDX_API.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This third party financial data access enables numerous use cases 
for consumers. In 2022, data available to the CFPB show that there were 
more than two billion access attempts to facilitate payment services, 
more than one billion access attempts for the purpose of identity 
verification (typically for opening new accounts), tens of billions of 
access attempts for account monitoring and personal financial 
management use cases, and over one billion access attempts facilitating 
other use cases, including fraud risk assessments, loan underwriting, 
and asset and income verification.
    While the share of consumer-authorized data accessed through 
dedicated credential-free APIs has grown sharply, many access attempts 
still rely on either credential-based APIs or screen scraping. As a 
share of all access attempts made by firms in the Aggregator 
Collection, the use of credential-free APIs grew from less than 1 
percent in 2019 and 2020 to 9 percent in 2021 and 24 percent in 2022. 
At the same time, the share of access attempts using screen scraping 
declined from 80 percent in 2019 to 50 percent in 2022. Credential-
based APIs saw a slight increase from 20 percent in 2019 to 27 percent 
in 2022.
    The recent growth in traffic through credential-free APIs reflects 
the adoption of this technology by some of the largest data providers, 
covering tens of millions of covered accounts. All depository data 
providers with more than $500 billion in assets have established, or in 
the near future will establish, a credential-free API. However, despite 
recent growth, the total share of data providers offering credential-
free access methods remains limited. At the end of 2022, an estimated 5 
to 10 percent of all data providers offered credential-free APIs, up 
from less than 1 percent in 2021. The adoption of credential-free APIs 
by core banking service providers and other vendors that serve hundreds 
of smaller depository institutions contributed to this growth.\143\ 
While adoption is relatively high for the largest depository data 
providers, the CFPB estimates that only 10 to 20 percent of 
depositories with more than $10 billion in assets had credential-free 
APIs at the end of 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ For example, see Press Release, Jack Henry & Assocs., 
Inc., Jack Henry Partners with Open Banking Providers to Enhance 
Digital Platform (Oct. 12, 2021), https://ir.jackhenry.com/news-releases/news-release-details/jack-henry-partners-open-banking-providers-enhance-digital.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The future evolution of the marketplace enabled by the exchange of 
consumer financial data is uncertain. Based on the data and market 
trends available, the CFPB makes the following assumptions for the 
baseline in this impact analysis. The analysis assumes that most of the 
largest data providers have adopted or likely would in the near future 
adopt credential-free APIs, which would meet many--but likely not all--
requirements contained in the rule. Awareness of CFPA section 1033 may 
have contributed to this, though adoption is also influenced by data 
providers' desire to shift third party access away from screen scraping 
and towards more secure and efficient technologies, as well as the 
demand for third party access from data providers' customers. The 
analysis also assumes that some share of smaller institutions would 
adopt credential-free APIs, depending on their technology and business 
models, over a longer-term horizon. Based on past trends, larger 
institutions would be more likely to adopt such interfaces sooner. 
However, adoption may be easier for (1) depositories whose systems are 
already well integrated in-house or with large core banking or online 
banking service providers and (2) nondepositories and newer 
depositories that do not have complex legacy systems, irrespective of 
the sizes of these types of institutions. In addition, in the current 
market some data providers block screen scraping access under certain 
circumstances, including for third party risk management, and the CFPB 
expects this would continue under the baseline.
    The CFPB understands that all or most third parties seeking to 
access consumer-authorized information and data providers are subject 
to the GLBA, specifically either the FTC's Safeguards Rule or the 
prudential regulators' Safeguards Guidelines. Additionally, third 
parties that operate in one of the at least 11 States with consumer 
data privacy legislation may be subject to other data security 
requirements and data usage restrictions. These State laws have all 
been passed since 2018. Depository data providers also have third party 
risk management obligations required by their prudential regulators, 
which will impose data security requirements on third parties seeking 
to access consumer-authorized data. As a result, at baseline, the CFPB 
expects that many third parties are already subject to statutory and 
regulatory data privacy and security obligations, and third parties 
have adopted or would adopt some basic standards related to risk 
management, data security, and data use. These standards likely have 
some degree of overlap with the requirements in the rule, though 
individual company systems or policies will depend on the size, 
location, practices, and other circumstances of each third party.
    Several commenters expressed concerns about how the rule may 
interact with other existing or future regulations. A credit union and 
a bank trade association asserted that the CFPB estimated costs in 
isolation of other regulations, including those from prudential 
regulators. Two data aggregators commented that data providers will 
invoke third party risk management obligations to deny access in 
anticompetitive ways. SBA Advocacy and a trade association commented 
that the CFPB should consider current or

[[Page 90959]]

future State laws that may have similar requirements.
    The CFPB has considered existing regulations and laws that interact 
with the rule, as these are part of the baseline for this impact 
analysis. Any costs of complying with existing regulations and laws are 
thus included in the baseline, and this analysis is of changes in costs 
relative to that baseline. The impact analysis does not consider the 
effects of potential future laws or regulations that may interact with 
the rule, as this would be overly speculative given the uncertainty 
around them.
    The impact analysis generally includes the major elements of costs 
to firms of complying with the rule. It also includes a discussion of 
how some of these costs likely would have been borne under the baseline 
as data providers either would have adopted or already have adopted 
systems or policies similar to those required by the rule. For example, 
where data providers have adopted some form of credential-free third 
party access under the baseline, the analysis discusses how the rule 
will impact the terms, costs, and features of such functionality.
    Finally, in the context of direct access, the proposal assumed for 
its baseline that all covered data providers offer consumers some 
digital banking interface and that these interfaces typically provide 
all or nearly all data fields required to be made available by the 
proposal. The CFPB maintains this assumption in the final rule, as the 
CFPB understands that all or nearly all data providers within the 
rule's revised coverage offer consumer interfaces. Comments related to 
the costs of building and maintaining such interfaces for direct access 
from data providers are discussed in part VI.E.1. The analysis 
considers how the rule will impact the costs and features of data 
providers' consumer interfaces.

E. Potential Benefits and Costs to Consumers and Covered Persons

    The analysis below describes the potential benefits and costs to 
consumers and covered persons in the following order: costs to data 
providers, costs to third parties, costs to consumers, benefits to data 
providers, benefits to third parties, benefits to consumers, and 
alternatives considered.
    A service provider for credit unions asserted that the CFPB should 
engage in a more thorough cost-benefit analysis and that the CFPB did 
not gather enough input or data from core providers. Trade associations 
for credit unions and businesses claimed that the proposal's analysis 
was incomplete, some elements had not been justified, and that the CFPB 
had failed to engage in a thorough and accurate analysis. The CFPB 
considered all of the data and evidence described in part VI.B, 
including all comments on the proposal, in analyzing the potential 
benefits and costs of the rule. The CFPB does not have the data to 
precisely determine every potential benefit and cost of the rule, but 
requested comment on the proposal for additional data or evidence that 
could refine the estimates of benefits and costs. The CFPB has 
reasonably evaluated all such evidence provided, and updated its 
estimates where appropriate.
    Where commenters stated that the CFPB had failed to justify or 
address the benefits and costs of particular provisions of the 
proposal, those comments are discussed in this part.
1. Costs to Covered Persons
Costs to Data Providers
    As a result of the rule, covered data providers may face increased 
costs related to maintaining consumer interfaces and establishing and 
maintaining developer interfaces, including modifying their existing 
systems to comply with the rule. The CFPB expects the largest costs to 
data providers to come from establishing and maintaining data access 
for authorized third parties in accordance with rule requirements. 
Covered data providers will also incur costs related to developing and 
implementing policies and procedures governing those systems. The rule 
may have additional costs to covered data providers related to changes 
in the frequency, scope, or method of consumer-authorized data access 
relative to the baseline. These changes may have secondary effects on 
the profitability of certain business models or practices, including by 
facilitating competition and enabling new products and services. The 
estimation of data providers' costs described in this section broadly 
uses the same methodology that the CFPB used in the proposal unless 
otherwise noted. The primary differences are adjustments to the costs 
of developing policies and procedures that are informed by comments.
Maintaining Direct Consumer Access
    The rule requires covered data providers to make covered data 
available through consumer interfaces and to allow consumers to export 
certain information in machine-readable formats. As discussed in part 
IV.A.2, small depository institutions are not required to comply with 
the final rule's requirements applicable to data providers. During the 
SBREFA Panel meetings, the CFPB received feedback that certain 
categories of information under consideration in the SBREFA Outline are 
not typically made available directly to consumers, and thus would be 
costly to provide.\144\ Based on this feedback, the rule covers a more 
limited set of information, which the CFPB understands is currently 
provided through existing consumer interfaces by all or nearly all data 
providers. Therefore, for most data providers, the CFPB expects limited 
additional costs due to the rule's direct consumer access requirements. 
For those data providers that do not provide all required information 
under the baseline, the CFPB expects that such information could be 
added at relatively low cost because the required information is 
generally already necessary for compliance with other regulatory 
requirements, like providing account opening disclosures. The CFPB does 
not have sufficient data to quantify the levels of these costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ SBREFA Panel Report at 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the proposed rule, the CFPB sought comment or information on the 
costs of adding data fields to the consumer interfaces but did not 
receive any. A trade association for nondepository service providers 
commented that the costs would be high to create a consumer interface 
for nondepository institutions that do not have one already but did not 
provide additional information on the magnitude of the cost. A few 
other commenters asserted that the rule will raise costs and barriers 
to entry for retailers to develop and use pass-through digital wallets, 
if those products are covered as data providers. The CFPB expects that 
few nondepository data providers that are covered by the rule do not 
already have a consumer interface. The CFPB acknowledges that those few 
nondepository data providers could incur additional costs associated 
with creating a consumer interface but does not have sufficient data to 
determine the magnitude of these costs.
Maintaining Third Party Access
    The rule requires data providers to maintain data access through a 
compliant developer interface. Although many data providers already 
maintain similar functionality, others would need to establish new 
interfaces, likely integrated with existing infrastructure that 
supports their consumer interfaces. However, unlike the proposal, the 
rule does not require small depositories to maintain data access for 
authorized third parties, meaning many fewer

[[Page 90960]]

institutions than estimated in the proposal will need to provide data 
access functionality under the rule. The CFPB expects that the costs of 
modifying existing infrastructure to ensure compliance with the rule 
will depend on the scope and nature of the necessary modifications but 
would generally be lower than the cost of establishing a new 
interface.\145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ For example, some data providers with existing interfaces 
may need to provide additional data fields, change the way their 
data are formatted, or make additional investments to ensure their 
interfaces meet the performance specifications required by the 
proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, data providers must either contract with a vendor for 
the required functionality or develop and maintain it in-house. The 
analysis below estimates compliance costs under these two approaches. 
Some data providers may comply with the rule through a combination of 
contracted services and in-house development. Because data providers 
will generally choose the lowest-cost approach, their costs will 
generally be at or below the lower of the costs of the two feasible 
alternatives analyzed here.
    The CFPB understands that data providers' costs depend on many 
factors and the extent to which they vary is impossible to fully 
capture. To produce cost estimates that are practical, meaningful, and 
transparent, where feasible, the CFPB estimates initial upfront costs 
and annual costs that generally scale with the size of the data 
provider for each of the contracted services and in-house approaches. 
All else equal, a data provider's annual cost per account or per 
customer is likely to decrease with a greater number of accounts or 
customers due to economies of scale. During the SBREFA process and in 
the Provider Collection, some data providers provided cost estimates 
per account while others estimated costs per customer. Therefore, the 
analysis below discusses estimates of the annual cost per account or 
per customer of operating a compliant developer interface that are 
likely to be appropriate for data providers of different sizes.
    Under the contracted services approach, data providers would 
primarily contract with a vendor for the necessary functionality. At 
baseline, many covered data providers contract with core banking 
providers or other vendors for transaction processing, online banking 
systems, or other key banking functions. Some core banking providers 
currently offer services to enable developer interfaces for data 
providers. The CFPB understands that some large core banking providers 
provide their clients with a basic developer interface at no additional 
cost.\146\ Based on comments received during the SBREFA process and 
market research, the CFPB understands that other core banking providers 
charge flat monthly fees or per-account fees.\147\ The CFPB understands 
that these fees vary but generally estimates that fees can be up to $24 
per account per year.\148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ For example, see Jack Henry & Assocs., Inc., Secure Data 
Connection: take back control of account connection, https://banno.com/data-aggregators/ (last visited Oct. 16, 2024).
    \147\ SBREFA Panel Report at 37.
    \148\ Id. at 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Data providers taking this approach will generally have minimal 
upfront costs to enable the required third party access. However, some 
data providers use service providers that do not currently offer this 
kind of functionality. Although other options exist and the CFPB 
expects service providers would face strong competitive pressure to 
offer compliant developer interfaces to their clients, the lowest cost 
option for some data providers may involve changing their core banking 
provider. The fixed costs of changing core banking providers can be 
high. Several small entity representatives stated that the upfront 
costs at a new core banking provider can range from $50,000 to $350,000 
depending on the scale and complexity of the system, with up to 
$200,000 in additional decommissioning costs to retrieve information 
from the old core banking provider. While small depository institutions 
are not required to comply with this final rule, many medium-sized 
depository institutions also rely on core providers. The CFPB expects 
that the medium-sized depository institutions may pay closer to 
$350,000 due to scale and complexity if they need to switch to a new 
core provider that offers a compliant developer interface. Based on its 
market research, the CFPB understands that core banking providers that 
offer a developer interface have a combined market share exceeding 67 
percent.\149\ Therefore, at most, 33 percent of depository data 
providers would need to change core banking providers to obtain a 
compliant interface that is bundled with their other core banking 
services. However, the CFPB expects that the true share of covered 
depository data providers that pay these costs will be much lower than 
33 percent. Data aggregators and other software vendors offer developer 
interfaces and the CFPB expects that some data providers will obtain 
the necessary functionality through these channels and will not need to 
change their core banking provider. Furthermore, core banking providers 
will face strong competitive pressure to offer compliant developer 
interfaces to retain their clients and potentially capture additional 
market share. The CFPB expects that these forces are likely to cause 
the cost of obtaining compliant interfaces to decline over time, which 
may reduce compliance costs most substantially for smaller covered 
depository data providers, given that they have the latest compliance 
date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ See Press Release, Fiserv, Finicity and Fiserv Offer More 
Consumer Choice Through Secure Data Access (Mar. 30, 2022), https://newsroom.fiserv.com/news-releases/news-release-details/finicity-and-fiserv-offer-more-consumer-choice-through-secure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFPB requested information related to the developer interfaces 
offered by core banking providers and other vendors and how such 
interfaces are priced. The CFPB received several comments on the costs 
associated with the contracted services approach. Several banks and 
credit unions confirmed that depository institutions will depend on 
core banking providers to obtain the necessary functionality. A credit 
union trade association and two banks asserted that these core 
providers are likely to charge additional fees to provide these 
services. A credit union suggested that an API could cost between 
$50,000 and $125,000 from a core provider. A bank commented that they 
may also incur associated personnel costs but did not provide 
additional information on the magnitude of the costs. A credit union 
asserted that, if a depository institution is required to switch to a 
new core provider to obtain a developer interface, the waiting period 
to switch is about two years and thus the depository would not be able 
to comply by the mandatory compliance dates. Another credit union, 
however, commented that core providers would be implementing solutions 
for all depositories and, thus, expects costs per data provider to be 
manageable. Similarly, a consumer advocate commented that they expect 
industry utilities and cloud providers could keep costs manageable. 
Finally, a service provider for credit unions commented that the CFPB 
did not gather enough input from core providers in estimating these 
costs.
    The CFPB acknowledges that core providers may charge data providers 
to provide the required functionality. The CFPB developed its cost 
estimates in the proposal based in part on feedback from small entity 
representatives received through the SBREFA process, and considers the 
information provided by commenters about core providers to be broadly 
consistent with the CFPB's estimated costs. Furthermore, the

[[Page 90961]]

commenters most concerned about the costs of contracting with core 
providers to enable the required third party access were small 
depository institutions that will not be required to comply with the 
data provider requirements of this final rule.
    Under the in-house approach, data providers would primarily employ 
software developers or similar staff to build and operate the necessary 
functionality. The estimates below are based on a fully in-house 
approach for developing of a compliant developer interface. Some data 
providers may instead contract with software providers for the initial 
development of their in-house developer interface. The CFPB anticipates 
that data providers would purchase their systems only if they could do 
so at a lower cost than the estimate of building a compliant interface 
provided here.
    The CFPB expects that most data providers that have already 
developed and have been maintaining consumer interfaces in-house would 
also develop and maintain the required developer functionality in-
house.\150\ In the proposal, the CFPB estimated that for smaller data 
providers, developing a compliant interface for third party access 
would likely require between 2,600 and 5,200 hours of work by software 
developers or similar staff, equivalent to five full-time employees 
over a period of three to six months, resulting in an estimated total 
upfront staffing cost of $237,000 to $475,000, which the CFPB has 
updated to $247,000 to $494,000 for the final rule based on more recent 
labor cost data.\151\ However, these estimates strongly depend on the 
needs and capabilities of specific entities. For example, based on 
feedback from nondepository small entity representatives, the CFPB 
estimated in the proposal that nondepository data providers may require 
only 480 hours of work by software developers at a total cost of 
$44,000, which the CFPB has updated to $46,000 based on more recent 
labor cost data.\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ As discussed below, large depository data providers have 
generally indicated that the resources required to maintain the 
required third party access in-house are a small fraction of the 
resources required to maintain consumer interfaces in-house. 
Therefore, the CFPB expects that data providers that have already 
invested in the capacity to operate a consumer interface in-house 
will take a similar approach to providing the required third party 
access. However, it is likely that some data providers will find it 
less costly to contract with service providers. As the industry 
develops, it is possible that it will become more common for data 
providers to enable third party access through service providers.
    \151\ This estimate was derived from BLS data showing a mean 
hourly wage for software developers of $66.40. BLS data also show 
that wages account for 70 percent of total compensation for private 
industry workers, leading to a $94.86 estimate for total hourly 
compensation, which was multiplied by the expected total number of 
hours of work required.
    \152\ Costs for depository and nondepository data providers are 
likely to differ for several reasons, including that depository data 
providers are generally more likely to have multiple legacy 
information technology systems that are more technically difficult 
to integrate with a developer interface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to these upfront costs, the CFPB estimated that data 
providers taking the in-house approach would incur ongoing costs. In 
the proposal, the CFPB estimated that small data providers (both 
depository and nondepository) would incur ongoing annual technology 
costs of $20,000 as well as ongoing staffing costs of $45,000 to 
$91,000, which the CFPB has updated to $48,000 to $95,000 based on more 
recent labor cost data.\153\ Under the final rule, small depositories 
will not have costs for complying with the data provider requirements 
of the rule. For medium-sized data providers with more accounts, the 
CFPB estimated ongoing costs of $5 per account per year to maintain the 
required functionality in-house, based on evidence from the Provider 
Collection described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ The CFPB estimates that small data providers choosing the 
in-house approach would require 500 to 1,000 hours per year of staff 
time by software developers. BLS data from May 2023 shows a mean 
hourly wage for software developers of $66.40. BLS data also show 
that wages account for 70 percent of total compensation for private 
industry workers, leading to a $94.86 estimate for total hourly 
compensation, which was multiplied by the expected total number of 
hours of work required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Provider Collection contains information on costs for a sample 
of large depository data providers. This complements the information on 
costs for small data providers gathered through the SBREFA process. For 
context, data provider small entity representatives generally may have 
up to a few tens of thousands of accounts, while data providers in the 
Provider Collection have millions of accounts.
    In the Provider Collection, several data providers stated that it 
was difficult to disaggregate the costs of developer interfaces from 
their consumer interfaces and other information technology systems. 
These data providers also generally provided estimates of ongoing 
annual costs or total costs since the deployment of their developer 
interfaces, rather than upfront costs to build an interface. Reported 
estimates of the cost of establishing and maintaining a developer 
interface varied widely, from $2 million to $47 million per year, with 
a median of $21 million per year. Of the data providers providing 
disaggregated estimates, the median cost of developer interfaces as a 
share of the cost of their consumer interfaces was 2.3 percent. An 
additional data provider did not provide a disaggregated estimate but 
reported their developer interface constituted a ``small portion of the 
total consumer-portal costs.''
    These data providers are larger and more complex than most data 
providers. Therefore, the CFPB adopts the cost of a compliant developer 
interface per account as the relevant metric for estimating the costs 
for data providers generally. The reported cost of an in-house 
developer interface per customer or account ranges from $0.25 to $8 per 
year, with a median of $3.37 per year, substantially lower than the $24 
per year reported by small entity representatives as the potential cost 
for the contracted services approach. Within the sample, the per 
account cost generally declined as the number of accounts 
increased.\154\ Based on this evidence, the CFPB estimates that annual 
costs per account to maintain an in-house developer interface are 
likely to be approximately $3 for large depository data providers and 
$5 for medium-sized depository data providers. Although the Provider 
Collection sample is relatively limited, the pattern of per-account 
costs declining with the number of accounts suggests that--relative to 
the alternative of contracting for a developer interface--data 
providers developing and maintaining interfaces in-house likely have 
larger upfront fixed costs but smaller ongoing per account costs. These 
estimated costs are generally for depository institutions rather than 
nondepositories. Given feedback from small entity representatives of 
nondepository institutions that would qualify as data providers under 
the rule, the CFPB expects that nondepository data providers would 
generally have less need to integrate across multiple systems and would 
be less likely to have legacy software that is difficult to update, 
resulting in lower costs on average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \154\ For the data providers in the Provider Collection that 
provided both cost estimates and numbers of accounts, there was a 
negative correlation coefficient of approximately -0.6 between per 
account costs and number of accounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimates above relate to the costs of developing and 
maintaining a developer interface for data providers without such 
existing interfaces. Covered data providers with existing developer 
interfaces that are not fully compliant with the proposed rule would 
incur smaller costs to modify their interfaces and existing third party 
access agreements to align with the

[[Page 90962]]

requirements of the rule. The cost for such covered data providers 
would depend on the extent to which their developer interfaces do not 
comply with the requirements of the proposed rule. Without granular 
data on the nature of partially compliant interfaces, the CFPB cannot 
provide a precise estimate of the cost of bringing such systems into 
compliance with the rule. However, that cost will generally be a 
fraction of the cost of developing and maintaining a new interface.
    In the proposal, the CFPB sought comment or additional data on the 
costs associated with modifying an existing developer interface or 
establishing a new compliant developer interface, including how those 
costs compare to contracting with a service provider. Many community 
banks, credit unions, and related trade associations commented that 
they expect the costs of the required functionality to be much higher 
for small depository institutions than those estimated by the CFPB. 
These commenters did not provide additional data or information that 
would allow the CFPB to precisely update the costs for small 
depositories estimated in the proposal. The CFPB acknowledges that 
small depository institutions may have faced additional challenges to 
implement the rule at this time and is not requiring small depository 
institutions to comply with the final rule's requirements on data 
providers. Accordingly, the CFPB has not updated the estimates for 
small depository institution data providers.
    Several banks, credit unions, and their respective trade 
associations asserted that the CFPB underestimated compliance costs for 
data providers, failed to consider all costs, and underestimated the 
technical challenges associated with the proposal. A bank and a credit 
union asserted that the incremental costs associated with the increased 
number of data requests will not be minimal on a per-account basis. A 
credit union and several credit union trade associations asserted that 
the CFPB's per-account cost estimates were not appropriate for smaller 
depository institutions because those estimates were primarily derived 
from information provided by large data providers. These commenters 
generally did not provide additional data or information that the CFPB 
could use to modify the cost estimates and instead requested additional 
study before finalizing the rule. One bank requested that the CFPB 
estimate expected transaction volumes, customer service staffing, IT 
systems and security protocols, and how these may depend on the size of 
the data provider.
    The CFPB acknowledges that some data providers may incur larger 
costs than those discussed in this section. The costs associated with 
implementing the rule will be data provider-specific and the estimated 
costs discussed here should be considered the average expected costs 
for a data provider. Had small depositories been required to comply 
with the final rule's requirements on data providers, the CFPB 
acknowledges that they may have faced higher or more uncertain costs 
than discussed here to comply with the final rule. The CFPB has 
considered the information from the comments, together with the 
Provider Collection and SBREFA panel, and has determined that the 
estimates discussed in this section are appropriate for the data 
providers that are covered by the rule.
    Commenters representing bank trade associations stated that some 
data providers would incur significant costs to comply with the rule, 
even if they already have an existing interface for third party access. 
Several bank trade associations noted that banks have already spent 
hundreds of hours assessing compliance and designing potential 
solutions and modifications that may be needed to comply with the rule. 
One trade association asserted that the rule could cost as much as $100 
million in the first year and an additional $15 million each year to 
update and maintain a compliant developer interface, although the trade 
association did not specify how they obtained these estimates. The CFPB 
acknowledges that data providers that already have a third party 
interface may incur costs to update and maintain that interface to 
comply with the rule and notes that $15 million in annual ongoing costs 
is consistent with the CFPB's estimates for large data providers with 
millions of accounts. However, given the information contained in the 
comment, the CFPB considers the magnitude of the provided estimate of 
costs for the first year to be overstated, particularly given the 
rule's extended compliance timelines for large data providers relative 
to the proposal.
    A bank commented that the CFPB failed to account for compliance 
costs of reviewing requests and monitoring consumer authorizations. In 
this analysis, these costs are accounted for in the ongoing costs 
associated with maintaining a developer interface, but the CFPB 
acknowledges that some data providers may incur higher levels of cost 
than others.
    Two credit unions commented that the CFPB underestimated costs of 
the revocation mechanism. Data providers are permitted but not required 
to offer a developer interface that lets consumers revoke third party 
access. The CFPB does not include costs associated with an optional 
feature.
    Many data providers and SBA Advocacy commented that the lack of 
clarity on what the proposal had referred to as a ``qualified industry 
standard'' would create confusion and increase compliance costs, 
particularly for smaller data providers, and requested additional 
guidelines for the consensus standards and standard-setting bodies. As 
discussed in part II.C, the Industry Standard-Setting Final Rule 
finalized in June 2024 specifies the attributes standard-setting bodies 
must satisfy to receive CFPB recognition as a recognized standard 
setter capable of adopting consensus standards (referred to under the 
proposal as a qualified industry standard). Under the final rule, 
conformance with consensus standards serve as indicia of compliance for 
various provisions of the final rule. The CFPB has determined that the 
Industry Standard-Setting Final Rule and the references to consensus 
standards in this rule will mitigate the cost concerns of these 
commenters (assuming the consensus standards comply with the final 
rule), particularly given the extended compliance timelines in the 
final rule.
Developing and Implementing Policies and Procedures
    The rule includes disclosure and recordkeeping requirements for all 
covered data providers related to consumer-authorized data access. The 
rule requires data providers to calculate and disclose the response 
rate for third party data access on a monthly basis. The CFPB 
understands that a variety of performance metrics, including the 
response rate, may be calculated in the normal course of operating an 
API or other digital interface for diagnostic purposes. Therefore, the 
cost of this provision is included in the cost of developing and 
maintaining a compliant developer interface estimated above. Data 
providers may incur an additional upfront cost of developing and 
testing a system to regularly disclose required performance metrics on 
their website. The CFPB estimates that this process would take less 
than 80 hours of staff time at an estimated cost of $7,600 per data 
provider.\155\ The CFPB expects that

[[Page 90963]]

once the disclosure system is implemented it would be maintained at 
minimal incremental cost as part of the overall cost of operating data 
providers' websites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ This estimate was derived from BLS data showing a mean 
hourly wage for software developers of $66.40. BLS data also show 
that wages account for 70 percent of total compensation for private 
industry workers, leading to a $94.86 estimate for total hourly 
compensation, which was multiplied by the expected total number of 
hours of work required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule requires data providers to have policies and procedures 
such that the developer interface is reasonably designed to ensure that 
data are accurately transferred to third parties. The CFPB expects that 
data providers would comply with this requirement as part of 
establishing and maintaining a compliant developer interface. 
Therefore, the costs of ensuring that the developer interface is 
reasonably designed to transfer data accurately are included in the 
analysis above.
    The rule also requires data providers to have policies and 
procedures reasonably designed to ensure that the reason for the 
decision to decline a third party's request to access its interface is 
communicated to the third party. The requirements to inform third 
parties when and why access was not permitted would generally be 
satisfied as part of the onboarding process in cases of reasonable 
denials related to risk management or built into a data provider's 
developer interface, as automated responses to third party data access 
requests. Similarly, the requirements to retain records to demonstrate 
compliance with certain requirements of the proposal would generally be 
built into a data provider's developer interface. As a result, the CFPB 
considers the costs of complying with these requirements as part of the 
overall costs of the onboarding process or implementing a compliant 
developer interface, as described elsewhere. The CFPB has previously 
estimated that, to comply with a rule of similar complexity, a data 
provider will require several categories of one-time costs.\156\ The 
CFPB has added several categories of one-time costs relative to the 
proposal in response to the comments discussed below. The CFPB has also 
adjusted the estimates to account for inflation. Each covered data 
provider is expected to incur the following costs: $9,000 to $25,000 
for preparation and planning; $3,100 to $5,200 for developing policies 
and procedures; $3,700 to $8,900 for legal and compliance review; 
$3,900 to $5,600 for developing forms and disclosures; and $3,800 to 
$6,500 for training staff and vendors on the new policies and 
procedures.\157\ The CFPB estimates a total one-time cost of developing 
and implementing policies and procedures as required by the proposed 
rule of $23,500 to $51,200 per data provider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \156\ 88 FR 35150, 35497 (May 31, 2023).
    \157\ Id. at 35150.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A nondepository entity trade association commented that the 
proposal's cost estimates for updating policies and procedures were too 
low. A bank requested that the CFPB determine the costs associated with 
developing disclosures and account agreement changes. The CFPB has 
adjusted the costs associated with developing policies, procedures, 
disclosures, and agreements in the final rule. A bank commented that it 
was not practical to provide some information, such as terms and 
conditions, in a machine-readable format. As discussed in part IV.C.2., 
the rule does not apply the machine-readability requirements to terms 
and conditions and some other consumer information provided through the 
consumer interface. However, the CFPB has determined that it is 
necessary to make that information available in a machine-readable form 
through the developer interface.
    Two trade associations for depositories asserted that the proposed 
record retention requirements for data providers would require 
providers to keep track of, and report on, all data collected about 
consumers, which would create large costs. The rule does not require 
that data providers keep records about all data collected about 
consumers. Instead, the rule requires that data providers retain 
records related to third party requests for access to its interface, 
requests for information, third party authorizations, revocation 
requests made through the data provider, and performance 
specifications, as discussed in part IV.C.7. Additionally, some bank 
commenters suggested a shorter retention period than three years for 
information related to data accessed through the developer interface, 
though at least one bank trade association commenter supported the 
three-year retention period. The CFPB has determined that the record 
retention requirements will provide the data necessary to facilitate 
effective supervision and enforcement of compliance with the rule.
Indirect Costs
    In addition to the direct costs described above, data providers are 
likely to incur indirect costs as a result of the rule. The CFPB 
expects costs related to onboarding additional third parties relative 
to baseline as well as changes in the frequency, scope, or method of 
consumer-authorized data access relative to the baseline. These changes 
may have secondary effects on the profitability of certain business 
models or practices, including by facilitating competition and enabling 
new products and services.
Costs From Onboarding Additional Third Parties
    The rule generally requires data providers to grant access to their 
developer interface, except for reasonable denials related to risk 
management or the absence of certain information about themselves. 
Although the rule does not require formal data access agreements, the 
CFPB expects the rule to lead to more third parties requesting and 
being granted access to data providers' developer interfaces relative 
to the baseline. The CFPB expects that this is likely to require data 
providers to enter into more onboarding arrangements with third 
parties. In the Aggregator Collection responses, which reflect costs 
applicable under the baseline, aggregators reported that negotiating a 
data access agreement with a data provider could take between 50 and 
4,950 staff hours for business relationship managers, software 
developers, lawyers, compliance professionals, and senior management, 
depending on the complexity of the negotiation. The median estimated 
time was 385 staff hours per agreement. The CFPB expects that data 
providers currently spend roughly equivalent time and resources 
negotiating and signing data access agreements at baseline.
    These costs are likely to decrease under the rule relative to the 
baseline because many features of interface onboarding arrangements are 
now regulated by the rule and not subject to negotiation, including 
requirements for interface reliability, fees, the scope of data 
accessible via the interface, authorization procedures, and the 
duration of access to consumers' covered data. One firm in the 
Aggregator Collection stated that in cases where data providers agree 
to use existing industry-defined standards there is essentially no need 
for negotiation. The CFPB expects that under the rule nearly all data 
providers will use standardized onboarding arrangements and the costs 
of establishing data access will generally be limited to ensuring third 
party risk management standards are satisfied and performing any 
administrative tasks to provide third parties with access to the 
developer interface. In the proposal, the CFPB estimated that this 
process would require 80 staff hours on average, representing 
approximately $6,800. These costs may be further reduced if industry 
accreditations or consensus standards develop to streamline data 
providers' required efforts on third party risk management, or to the 
extent that

[[Page 90964]]

prudential regulators provide further guidance applicable to sound risk 
management in the specific context of consumer-authorized data access. 
While some data providers and third parties may choose to use a 
customized arrangement that respects the terms of the rule, they will 
generally only do so when both parties perceive that the benefits 
exceed the costs. Because the choice to negotiate a costly but more 
customized arrangement is a business decision not required by the rule, 
the additional costs of doing so are voluntarily acceded to and are 
generally outside the scope of this analysis.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ To the extent that data providers choose to voluntarily 
enter into additional customized arrangements in response to the 
rule, the CFPB expects the benefits to data providers of such 
arrangements to exceed any additional upfront costs from 
establishing the arrangements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total cost of entering into onboarding arrangements will depend 
on the difference between the number of agreements that would be 
negotiated under the baseline and the number of onboarding arrangements 
that would be entered into under the rule. Because the consumer-
authorized data access system is developing rapidly, it is not possible 
to precisely estimate the number of additional connections that would 
be established by the rule. However, in the near term, the CFPB 
anticipates that most data providers will continue to provide third 
parties access to consumer-authorized data through specialized 
intermediaries like data aggregators, as they would have under the 
baseline. As a result, the CFPB estimated in the proposal that, on 
average, large data providers would need to enter into 10 or fewer 
additional onboarding arrangements in the years immediately following 
implementation of the rule, at a maximum cost of $68,000 per large data 
provider.\159\ In contrast, medium sized entities are likely to rely on 
core banking providers or other vendors to facilitate onboarding on 
their behalf at minimal incremental cost. Over time, data providers are 
likely to enter into additional onboarding arrangements due to entry by 
new third parties and other changes in the market.\160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ This estimate was derived from the $6,800 estimate from 
the proposal for the cost of establishing a data access agreement 
multiplied by the up to 10 additional agreements that may need to be 
established due to the rule.
    \160\ For example, this final rule and the Industry Standard-
Setting Final Rule aim to accelerate the development and adoption of 
consensus standards covering myriad aspects of open banking. This 
would likely reduce the frictions and costs associated with 
establishing and maintaining connections between data providers and 
third parties, potentially increasing the number of access 
agreements negotiated by data providers but reducing the costs of 
each agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFPB requested comment on how the proposed rule would change 
both the cost of onboarding third parties and the number of data access 
arrangements between data providers and third parties. A bank, a credit 
union, and two research institutes commented that the costs to vet 
third parties will be substantial, with the bank and credit union 
further asserting the CFPB has underestimated those costs. A 
nondepository entity trade association commented that there will be an 
increase in costs stemming from the increase in the number of data 
agreements caused by the rule. Another credit union asserted that small 
credit unions do not have the necessary legal resources to vet third 
parties. Two banks asserted that the CFPB underestimated the costs of 
negotiating connection agreements. In contrast, a data aggregator 
estimated that the rule will reduce the cost of these agreements by at 
least 30 percent.
    The CFPB acknowledges that data providers may incur costs 
associated with vetting third parties but expects that consensus 
standards will eventually develop around the rule's requirements and 
the ways that third parties can demonstrate compliance, which will 
mitigate costs for data providers by putting the onus on third parties 
to show they are credible and secure. Furthermore, the CFPB expects 
that data aggregators will continue to act as intermediaries between 
data providers and third parties over the short to medium term, which 
will reduce the costs to data providers of onboarding additional third 
parties to compliant developer interfaces. However, based on the 
information provided by commenters, the CFPB is increasing its estimate 
of the number of hours required to finalize an onboarding arrangement 
from 80 hours to 120 hours on average, representing an average cost per 
agreement of $10,800.\161\ Given the CFPB's expectation that large data 
providers would need to enter into 10 or fewer additional onboarding 
arrangements in the years immediately following implementation of the 
rule, the CFPB estimates a maximum cost of $108,000 per large data 
provider.\162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ This estimate was derived from BLS data showing a mean 
hourly wage for compliance officers ($38.55), general and operations 
managers ($62.18), lawyers ($84.84), and software developers 
($66.40), for an average hourly wage of $62.99. BLS data also show 
that wages account for 70 percent of total compensation for private 
industry workers, leading to an $89.99 estimate for total hourly 
compensation, which was multiplied by the expected total number of 
hours of work required.
    \162\ This estimate was derived from the $10,800 estimate for 
the cost of establishing a data access agreement multiplied by the 
up to 10 additional agreements that may need to be established due 
to the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prohibition on Fees for Access
    The rule does not permit data providers to charge fees for access 
to covered data through their interfaces. To the limited extent that 
data providers are currently charging such fees, the rule would 
eliminate these revenues. Based on the Aggregator Collection, the 
Provider Collection, and its market research, the CFPB understands that 
fees for consumer and third party access are currently rare.
    The CFPB understands that third parties have in some cases made 
payments to data providers to incentivize data providers that are 
reluctant or unable to provide a developer interface of sufficient 
quality sufficiently quickly. While rare in the current market, the 
rule eliminates such fees that might have been charged in the future 
under the baseline.
    The CFPB does not have representative data on the prevalence or 
size of payments to data providers and therefore cannot precisely 
estimate the cost of eliminating them. However, as described above, the 
information available to the CFPB indicates that few data providers 
currently charge third parties for access and that the total cost to 
data providers of eliminating such charges would be minimal.
    The CFPB received many comments on the costs associated with the 
prohibition of fees. Many banks, credit unions, and bank or credit 
union trade associations commented that the prohibition of fees means 
that data providers will not be able to recoup the costs of complying 
with the rule. One trade association and a bank asserted that the CFPB 
has failed to fully consider the costs associated with a prohibition of 
fees but did not provide additional information upon which to base 
updated estimates. SBA Advocacy suggested that the CFPB could allow 
small entities to charge fees to recoup costs.
    The CFPB acknowledges that covered data providers that would charge 
fees for receiving requests or making available consumer-authorized 
covered data to third parties under the baseline will not be able to do 
so under the rule, including to establish or maintain interfaces 
required under the rule. The prohibition on fees for data access would 
be costly for such covered data providers. The information available to 
the CFPB indicates that few, if any, covered data providers currently 
charge these fees or would charge these fees in the future under the 
baseline.

[[Page 90965]]

    The CFPB acknowledges that covered data providers will incur costs 
associated with the rule and may seek new sources of revenue to offset 
those costs. The prohibition on fees for data access forecloses one 
possible new source of revenue. However, to the extent that covered 
data providers would charge these fees in order to pass some compliance 
costs through to other market participants, these costs are 
appropriately accounted for in the discussion of these costs. Under an 
alternative where there is no fee prohibition, some covered data 
providers would likely require third parties or consumers to pay fees 
in order to access consumer-authorized covered data. As few, if any, 
covered data providers currently charge these fees, the CFPB cannot 
anticipate with certainty how common fees would be if permitted, which 
data providers would be most likely to charge fees, or how these fees 
would be set in equilibrium. In general, covered data providers would 
benefit from the option to charge fees. If fees were charged directly 
to consumers, consumers would incur the cost of paying the fees or the 
cost of forgoing the benefits of products and services enabled by 
consumer-authorized covered data. To the extent that consumers would 
not exercise their right to access their covered data due to fees, 
third parties would also incur costs related to a smaller potential 
market for their products and services. If fees were instead charged to 
third parties, third parties would incur the direct cost of paying the 
fees. Third parties would likely pass through some of those fees on to 
consumers. Depending on how they were structured, fees would change 
third parties' incentives in ways that might limit consumers ability to 
access third party products and services or degrade the quality of 
products and services. For example, if data providers charged fees 
based on the number of consumer accounts accessed, third parties would 
have an incentive to deter or deny less profitable consumers from using 
their product or service. As another example, if data providers charged 
fees for each access attempt, third parties would have an incentive to 
reduce the frequency with which they update consumer-authorized covered 
data, which would diminish the benefits to consumers of products and 
services that rely on real-time consumer data.
    As discussed in part IV.C.2, the CFPB considered allowing fees for 
data access, but determined that the potential for data providers to 
set fees that are not reasonable and that inhibit consumers' access 
posed too great of a risk to the benefits of the rule as a whole. 
Further, small depositories, the institutions currently least able to 
absorb these costs and therefore potentially most likely to seek to 
offset them with new fees, are not required to comply with the rule's 
requirements on data providers.
More Frequent Access by Third Parties
    Based on responses to the Provider Collection, the CFPB is aware 
that covered data providers sometimes impose access caps, such as 
limiting the number of allowable data requests or the frequency with 
which authorized third parties can access consumer data. For example, 
the CFPB is aware that some data providers cap the number of data 
requests per day per connection. The CFPB understands that in some 
cases access caps prevent third parties from accessing consumer data as 
often as is reasonably necessary to provide the requested service. For 
example, one firm in the Aggregator Collection reported spending 
``significant resources'' to manage its traffic in order to avoid 
access cap limits. Another firm in the Aggregator Collection reported 
spending resources to persuade large financial institutions to raise or 
eliminate access caps. Therefore, the prohibition on unreasonably 
limiting the frequency of third party requests for covered data or 
delaying responses to those requests is likely to increase total data 
requests for some covered data providers and may therefore increase 
digital infrastructure costs for those data providers relative to the 
baseline.\163\ This increase is likely to be larger for data providers 
with more restrictive access caps at baseline, if such access caps are 
not reasonable under the rule. The CFPB expects that for most data 
providers, any increase in traffic due to such increases in the number 
of data requests will generally be more than offset by declines in 
screen scraping, which the CFPB understands to typically involve 
heavier traffic loads per request than requests through a developer 
interface. A small number of large data providers have already 
restricted screen scraping under the baseline and may experience net 
increases in developer interface traffic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ As discussed in the section on Benefits to data providers 
in part VI.E.3, other features of the proposed rule are likely to 
decrease the frequency and scope of data requests and therefore 
digital infrastructure costs for covered data providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A bank trade association commented that a lack of access caps for 
developer interfaces would increase compliance costs and potentially 
degrade interface performance. As discussed in part IV.C.3., the CFPB 
has determined that data providers are permitted to impose reasonable 
access caps, to ensure that requests from one authorized third party do 
not unduly burden the data provider's developer interface. Given this 
determination, the CFPB expects that incremental costs from any 
increased data requests are likely to be minimal on a per-account 
basis.
Reduced Information Advantages
    Through their role in providing financial products and services, 
data providers possess ``first party'' data on the accounts held by 
their customers. These data are a valuable source of information for 
data providers in developing, pricing, and marketing products and 
services, but authorized data access may reduce this information 
advantage. The CFPB expects that the rule will generally increase third 
party access relative to the baseline and thus diminish data providers' 
informational advantages from first party data. This may enable third 
parties to more effectively compete with products or services offered 
by data providers, potentially limiting the prices data providers can 
charge for their own products and services or reducing data providers' 
market shares or data providers' profits. For example, the CFPB 
understands that an important use case for consumer-authorized 
financial data is transaction-based underwriting. At baseline, many 
data providers sell credit products to their depositors. To the extent 
that the rule facilitates entry into the lending market or improves the 
quality of the products and services offered by nondepository lenders 
or other depository lenders that use consumer-authorized data, data 
providers that enjoyed informational advantages relative to their peers 
may lose market share and therefore profits. As another example, 
consumer-authorized data sharing is likely to facilitate faster new 
account openings. As it becomes easier for consumers to compare account 
terms, transfer recurring payments, move funds, and have their identity 
verified, depository data providers may face pressure to pay higher 
deposit rates or make costly investments in service quality in order to 
retain deposits, as discussed in the section on Benefits to consumers 
in part VI.E.4.
    In general, accurately predicting how changes in the availability 
of consumer-authorized financial data will change the structure of the 
market for consumer financial services or how changes in market 
structure will impact the profitability of individual firms or 
industries is very difficult, in large part because firms that are data 
providers in some cases also operate as third parties accessing data 
from other data

[[Page 90966]]

providers, and the CFPB expects more data providers to act as third 
parties over time. As a result, the CFPB is not able to quantify the 
impacts of reduced informational advantages that stem from the 
proposal.
    The rule is likely to increase the quality of services that use 
consumer-authorized financial data to facilitate competition, including 
by comparing or recommending products or services to consumers. This 
may impact data providers. For example, a consumer might use a 
comparison shopping service that would recommend credit cards likely to 
minimize their costs from interest and fees or maximize their benefits 
from rewards programs given their historical spending patterns. The 
CFPB is not able to accurately predict how many firms would develop 
services that facilitate competition in this way, how many consumers 
would use such services, or how the availability of such services would 
impact individual firms or industries.
    Many data providers and bank or credit union trade associations 
expressed concern that the rule would advantage third parties at the 
expense of data providers. A credit union trade association asserted 
that the CFPB did not properly assess the risks from the growth of non-
bank lenders.
    The CFPB notes that data providers may also act as third parties. 
Furthermore, the rule places substantial restrictions on how third 
parties can use and retain these data, relative to the baseline of 
screen scraping and no restrictions on the use or retention of the 
data. The CFPB acknowledges that there may be growth in nondepository 
lending but has determined that the rule's restrictions and existing 
regulations that apply to nondepository lenders under the baseline will 
mitigate the risks associated with this growth.
Potential Costs Related to Liability or Fraud
    Several data providers and bank or credit union trade associations 
commented on the high costs of resolving disputes, dealing with third 
parties lacking appropriate security, and the costs of liability 
falling disproportionately on data providers. Two credit union trade 
associations expressed concern that, even when a third party is 
responsible for a data breach, data providers will face reputational 
risk, losses due to fraud, and costs to resolve the breach. The SBA 
Office of Advocacy commented that the lack of clarity in the rule 
regarding liability could lead to confusion and expensive litigation. A 
few data providers and a bank trade association asserted that the CFPB 
did not fully account for the costs associated with security breaches 
and liability. A few bank trade associations and data providers 
asserted that the absence of a ban on screen scraping will create costs 
for data providers to block screen scraping. The CFPB notes that these 
risks exist under the baseline and are likely worse in the current 
marketplace, as discussed in the Benefits to data providers part, 
because of the widespread storage of credentials, the lack of rules on 
data retention, and downstream data sharing or sales by third parties. 
A credit union commented that they have already spent resources on 
increasing security and blocking screen scraping under the baseline. 
The CFPB expects that the allowance for reasonable denials in the rule 
and the role of consensus standards related to third party data 
security will also mitigate these risks by allowing data providers to 
deny access for third parties that have not established sufficient 
security protocols. The CFPB acknowledges that some institutions, 
especially those without developer interfaces, may face higher costs to 
develop and maintain data security systems, but the CFPB expects that 
the majority of data providers will see a net decrease in fraud risks 
and reputational risks relative to the baseline with widespread screen 
scraping and no restrictions on data collection, retention, and use.
Potential Costs From Increased Account Switching
    In general, consumers prefer financial institutions that provide 
better prices or customer experiences. As discussed in the section on 
Effects of increased data sharing on innovation and competition in part 
VI.E.4, the CFPB expects that the rule will improve consumers' ability 
to switch financial institutions. As a result, financial institutions 
that offer covered products with less competitive prices and customer 
experiences may lose market share due to the rule. In addition, if 
greater competition on price leads to lower margins on covered 
accounts, profits for data providers that lower their margins in 
response to the rule will be decreased.
Costs to Third Parties
    Third parties accessing data under the rule will be required to 
modify existing procedures, so they are consistent with the proposal's 
authorization procedures for accessing covered data on behalf of a 
consumer, such as providing the authorization disclosure; implementing 
the limitations on data collection, use, and retention; developing 
mechanisms for revocation of authorization; providing the annual 
reauthorization of access; and executing record retention requirements. 
In addition to these upfront and ongoing compliance costs, the rule may 
impose further costs on third parties through the transition away from 
screen scraping access, increased data interface onboarding costs with 
data aggregators and data providers, restrictions on data use and 
retention. Potential effects of the new financial data processing 
products or services definition are also discussed.
Implementing Mechanisms for Data Deletion and Record Retention
    The rule requires third parties to establish and maintain systems 
that receive data access revocation requests, track duration-limited 
authorizations, and delete data when required due to revoked 
authorizations, durational periods ending, or because retaining the 
data is no longer reasonably necessary. Third parties will also need to 
retain records as required by the rule. Many of these requirements 
overlap with the requirements of other State or international data 
privacy laws. For example, third parties that operate in the State of 
California and have gross annual revenues greater than $25 million may 
already have similar systems if they are subject to the California 
Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA),\164\ which requires that businesses delete 
consumer personal data upon consumer request. Though many State privacy 
laws exclude businesses or data covered by the GLBA, third parties that 
are regulated by State privacy laws may need to modify their systems, 
incorporate authorization duration limits, and process more revocation 
requests, but they will likely have lower costs than third parties that 
must establish such a system from scratch. The CFPB estimated in the 
SBREFA Panel Report, and described in the proposal, that establishing 
and maintaining an appropriate data system would cost up to $75,000 
based on analysis of the Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment for 
the CCPA.\165\

[[Page 90967]]

The CFPB understands that some third parties already retain records 
related to consumer data access requests. The rule will require third 
parties to retain records that demonstrate compliance with the rule, 
including a copy of the authorization disclosure and, if a data 
aggregator accessed consumer-authorized data, a copy of the 
certification statement. The CFPB expects that the costs of 
implementing record retention requirements would be small relative to 
the costs of implementing deletion requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \164\ Cal. Civ. Code section 1798.198(a) (2018).
    \165\ The Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment for the CCPA 
estimated that the average technology cost would be $75,000. 
However, the CFPB estimates that the cost for many third parties 
would be lower, as the CCPA figure was based on a survey of the top 
one percent of California businesses by size (those with more than 
500 employees), and the CCPA has more requirements than the proposed 
rule. See Off. of the Att'y Gen., Cal. Dep't of Just., Standardized 
Regulatory Impact Assessment: California Consumer Privacy Act of 
2018 Regulations (Aug. 2019), https://dof.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/352/Forecasting/Economics/Documents/CCPA_Regulations-SRIA-DOF.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described in the SBREFA Panel Report, several small entity 
representatives provided cost estimates of implementing data retention 
limits. At the low end, one third party small entity representative 
that had implemented de-identification and deletion systems stated that 
it took between 240 and 480 hours of staff time,\166\ and another third 
party small entity representative stated that it developed a system to 
comply with the CCPA in about 480 hours. At the high end, one third 
party small entity representative estimated that building a system to 
comply with retention limits would take 1,000 hours. If a third party 
chose not to establish a system to implement the retention limits of 
the rule and instead chose to manually delete data to comply with the 
retention limits, the CFPB understands that the time cost would be 
substantially higher: one third party small entity representative 
explained that, as an organization of fewer than 50 people, complying 
with a single deletion request could require 480 hours. Based on this 
feedback, the CFPB estimates that the one-time cost of implementing 
data retention limits and retaining relevant records will be between 
$22,800 and $94,900.\167\ The three-year record retention requirement 
of the rule will impose limited additional electronic storage costs 
annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \166\ The small entity representative reported that the task 
took its team two to four weeks. Based on other small entity 
representative team sizes, the CFPB assumes that the team included 
three people.
    \167\ The CFPB assumes that implementing deletion requirements 
would require between 240 and 1,000 hours of work by a software 
developer. The cost estimate was derived from BLS data showing a 
mean hourly wage for software developers of $66.40. BLS data also 
show that wages account for 70 percent of total compensation for 
private industry workers, leading to a $94.86 estimate for total 
hourly compensation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One nondepository entity trade association commented that record 
retention requirements on third parties will impose far higher annual 
costs than estimated in the proposed rule, especially for smaller 
entities. The CFPB requested additional data or other information to 
further refine its estimates but did not receive cost estimates 
specific to revocation of authorization systems, implementing data 
retention limits, or record retention. The CFPB expects that the cost 
will be lower for third parties that already comply with existing data 
privacy laws. Third parties that do not retain any consumer-authorized 
data will be unaffected by data retention limits but will still need to 
follow record retention policies under the rule. The CFPB has 
determined that these record retention requirements are necessary to 
ensure compliance with the other components of the rule.
Annual Reauthorization Process
    The rule limits the duration of third party collection of covered 
data to no more than one year after a consumer's most recent 
authorization. Third parties will be required to obtain a new 
authorization from the consumer before the first anniversary of the 
consumer's most recent authorization to continue to collect the 
consumer's covered data without disruption. Because this new 
authorization will have the same legal requirements as the first 
authorization, most of its implementation costs would be captured by 
the costs described for the initial authorization and data retention 
systems. The CFPB expects that reauthorization reminders will typically 
be delivered electronically--such as a within-app notification or an 
email--at minimal additional direct cost.
    The reauthorization and retention limits may limit the quantity of 
data available for product improvement or other permissible uses of 
data. Some third parties may experience indirect costs due to service 
disruptions if they do not obtain a new authorization from the consumer 
before the anniversary of the consumer's most recent authorization, as 
they would not be able to request the consumer's data from data 
providers until the new authorization was obtained if more than one 
year has passed since the most recent authorization. If the consumer 
provides a new authorization after one year, any gaps in the scope of 
data collected would likely be filled, as the third party could then 
access two years of retrospective data.
    The costs associated with the reauthorization requirement will 
depend on the third party's business model. Two small entity 
representatives suggested in the SBREFA process that periodic 
reauthorization requirements on third parties could lead to reduced 
customer retention. One small entity representative stated that this 
would ``frustrate'' consumers, and another stated that only 0.32 
percent of its users prompted to reconnect to their bank account ever 
did so. A nondepository entity trade association commented that annual 
reauthorization would limit the value of pay-by-bank use cases, 
especially for recurring payments, and noted that card payments are not 
subject to reauthorization requirements. However, the CFPB understands 
that consumers are often required to reenter their card information for 
reoccurring payments after a card is lost, stolen, or expired, so 
consumers are not unfamiliar with reauthorizing payment methods.
    Studies indicate that onerous reauthorization requirements have 
impacted open banking usage and attrition in other countries. 
Reauthorization requirements created friction for third parties in the 
United Kingdom's open banking regime after the implementation of a 90-
day reauthorization requirement. One United Kingdom trade association 
estimated an attrition rate between 20 percent and 40 percent, while 
another trade association found an attrition rate between 35 percent 
and 87 percent.\168\ These attrition rates are likely to be different 
than those expected under the rule both because a 90-day 
reauthorization requirement is more burdensome than an annual 
reauthorization requirement and because more consumers may still be 
actively using a product or service after 90 days than after one year. 
The CFPB expects that, while some third parties would incur costs from 
consumer attrition, third parties will be more likely to obtain a new 
authorization from a consumer when that relationship is more valuable, 
and the reauthorization process will be relatively easy for consumers 
who wish to continue the relationship. These factors will generally 
limit the cost of disruptions due to the reauthorization requirements, 
particularly for third parties providing the most valuable services. 
The CFPB does not have data to estimate the costs to third parties of 
lost customers due to the annual reauthorization requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \168\ See Fin. Conduct Auth., Changes to the SCA-RTS and to the 
guidance in `Payment Services and Electronic Money--Our Approach' 
and the Perimeter Guidance Manual (Nov. 2021), https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/policy/ps21-19.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Providing Authorization Disclosure and Certification Statement
    The rule requires third parties to provide the authorization 
disclosure and certification statement when seeking to access covered 
data. When a

[[Page 90968]]

third party seeking authorization uses a data aggregator to assist with 
accessing covered data on behalf of a consumer, the rule requires the 
data aggregator to make its own certification statement to the 
consumer, though both the aggregator and third party certifications 
will be permitted to be made in the same disclosure. The CFPB expects 
that some data aggregators will provide the required authorization 
disclosure and certification statement on behalf of third parties 
seeking authorization. However, some third parties seeking 
authorization, including those that do not partner with data 
aggregators, may instead provide the authorization disclosure and 
certification statement through their own systems.
    For data aggregators and other third parties that choose to provide 
the authorization disclosure and certification statement through their 
own systems, and have not previously provided any disclosure statements 
to consumers, the CFPB estimates that building such a system would 
require approximately 1,000 hours of work by software developers or 
similar staff. This estimate is based on cost estimates in other 
consumer financial markets related to requirements for tailored 
disclosures provided at service initiation.\169\ The CFPB estimates 
that this will result in a one-time cost for a third party of 
$94,900.\170\ However, if third parties already provide disclosures at 
authorization under the baseline, the costs of modifying these 
disclosures to satisfy the proposal's requirements may be reduced. One 
data aggregator stakeholder stated that modifying the content of its 
existing disclosures would involve 30 to 40 hours of employee time, 
representing an equivalent cost for a third party of between $2,900 and 
$3,800.\171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \169\ 82 FR 54472, 54823 (Nov. 17, 2017).
    \170\ This estimate was derived from BLS data showing a mean 
hourly wage for software developers of $66.40. BLS data also show 
that wages account for 70 percent of total compensation for private 
industry workers, leading to a $94.86 estimate for total hourly 
compensation, which was multiplied by the expected total number of 
hours of work required.
    \171\ This estimate was derived from BLS data showing a mean 
hourly wage for software developers of $66.40. BLS data also show 
that wages account for 70 percent of total compensation for private 
industry workers, leading to a $94.86 estimate for total hourly 
compensation, which was multiplied by the expected total number of 
hours of work required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Data aggregators may pass through these costs to third parties that 
contract with them. One data aggregator stated in its response to the 
Aggregator Collection that disclosures for third parties that contract 
with data aggregators would be largely uniform and easily adapted, and 
the CFPB anticipates that this will be the case under the rule. The 
CFPB does not have data to estimate these disclosure costs. However, 
because data aggregators' disclosure costs would be spread across many 
third parties, the CFPB expects the burden of these requirements on any 
single third party that contracts with data aggregators to be small.
Policies and Procedures
    To implement the requirements of the rule, third parties will need 
to develop and maintain policies and procedures in several distinct 
areas to ensure compliance with the rule. These include: applying 
existing information security programs to their systems for the 
collection, use, and retention of covered data; ensuring the accuracy 
of the information that they collect; governing the limits on 
collection, use, and retention of consumer-authorized information; and 
record retention requirements. The CFPB understands that most 
authorized third parties and data aggregators are currently subject to 
the GLBA Safeguards Framework and so they already have policies and 
procedures regarding information security programs and will have lower 
costs for developing and maintaining similar requirements of the rule. 
However, a small portion of third parties may need to develop new GLBA-
compliant systems and would face greater costs. In other consumer 
financial markets, the CFPB has estimated that nondepository 
institutions would face a one-time cost of $5,300 to develop new 
policies and procedures and a one-time cost of $4,800 for a legal/
compliance review.\172\ Assuming comparable costs for the requirements 
of the rule yields a total cost of roughly $10,100 for developing and 
implementing policies and procedures. Maintaining these policies and 
procedures once they are implemented is likely to involve limited 
ongoing costs for third parties.\173\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \172\ Inflation-adjusted estimates from 88 FR 35150 (May 31, 
2023).
    \173\ SBREFA Panel Report at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transition Away From Screen Scraping
    The CFPB expects that third parties may face costs from the 
transition away from screen scraping. At baseline, screen scraping is a 
frequently used method of accessing consumer data: in 2022, roughly 
half of data access attempts by third parties in the Aggregator 
Collection were made through screen scraping. However, the share of 
access attempts made through screen scraping declined by approximately 
one-third between 2019 and 2022. The CFPB expects that screen scraping 
will continue to decline for non-covered financial products as data 
providers and third parties generally transition to data access under 
the terms of the rule. The CFPB expects that third parties will have 
strong incentives to avoid using screen scraping to access covered data 
from data providers that have compliant interfaces for third parties. 
In the SBREFA process, multiple small entity representatives expressed 
that the transition away from screen scraping would limit data 
accessibility. Relative to the baseline, the CFPB does not expect the 
transition away from screen scraping to negatively impact data 
availability for most data fields. The CFPB expects that data providers 
that provide third party access in compliance with rule requirements 
will block screen scraping for covered accounts, so third parties may 
not be able to access non-covered data fields from covered accounts. 
The CFPB requested comment on any specific data fields that may be less 
available due to the transition away from screen scraping, and the 
specific impacts of those changes, but did not receive relevant 
comments. The CFPB expects that the rule will not directly impact how 
third parties access non-covered data.
    At baseline, some third parties use screen scraping as a back-up 
access method when other data access systems are inoperable. The need 
for a back-up access method may be reduced under the rule because the 
rule imposes performance requirements for third party access. However, 
nondepository entity and researcher commenters expressed concern that 
these requirements could still reduce the quality of information 
provided and drive a market-wide race to the bottom, contending that 
data providers would have little incentive to drive performance higher. 
These commenters asserted that the proposal's performance requirements 
might permit lower performance than in their extant data access 
agreements with data providers. However, the rule would impose a 
general reasonableness requirement in addition to minimum performance 
requirements. Because data providers cannot only meet the minimum 
performance requirements, and instead must additionally demonstrate 
reasonable performance, indicia of which include performance comparable 
to other data providers, the CFPB expects there would be upward 
pressure on performance levels over time. Additionally, a third party 
small entity

[[Page 90969]]

representative stated in the SBREFA process that its customers lose 
access to services when data providers' interfaces are unavailable. The 
CFPB expects that consensus standards regarding performance, which also 
can serve as indicia of commercially reasonable performance, will also 
help improve the reliability of access over time. Furthermore, the 
value of screen scraping as an alternative option may be limited by its 
relatively low success rates: in the Aggregator Collection, 40 percent 
of initial account connection attempts made through screen scraping 
were successful in 2022, compared to 51 percent of initial account 
connection attempts made through interfaces for third parties. The CFPB 
does not have data to quantify any net change in data access 
reliability stemming from the combination of reduced screen scraping 
and increased availability of interfaces for third parties. However, 
with respect to nondepository entity comments that the proposed 3,500 
millisecond response time was too slow and vague, the final rule 
instead requires a proper response within a commercially reasonable 
time. The CFPB did not change other performance standards outlined in 
the proposed rule after considering nondepository entity comments in 
conjunction with those from data provider commenters, detailed in the 
section on Costs to data providers in part VI.E.1.
Cost of Onboarding Arrangements With Authorized Third Parties and Data 
Providers
    Third parties that previously accessed covered data through screen 
scraping without negotiating the terms of their access with data 
providers will now need to arrange for onboarding to the newly required 
developer interfaces. The CFPB expects that many of these arrangements 
will be established between data aggregators and data providers, though 
some would occur between authorized third parties that do not contract 
with data aggregators and data providers. As described in the section 
on Costs to data providers in part VI.E.1, the CFPB has updated its 
estimate of the average cost of this process between data aggregators 
and data providers to $10,800.
    Third parties may be denied data access based on risk management 
concerns or other permissible grounds, such as, for example, if the 
requested information is not covered data or falls into an exception. 
The CFPB expects that third parties may incur costs from responding to 
data providers' risk management information requests. Two research 
institutes stated that third parties would incur costs from responding 
to data providers' due diligence requests. Because prudential 
regulators require banks to follow certain risk management practices in 
contracting with third parties, the CFPB understands that authorized 
third parties that contract with either a data aggregator or a data 
provider at baseline provide due diligence information and will not 
face increased costs under the proposed rule. Third parties that comply 
with the GLBA Safeguards Framework are also unlikely to face increased 
costs. Though third parties that access consumer data solely through 
screen scraping at baseline will need to begin providing this 
information to the entities with which they contract, the CFPB expects 
that future consensus standards may limit the costs for third parties. 
The CFPB expects that third parties that comply with data providers' 
due diligence requirements will not be denied access to data providers' 
interfaces and so very few third parties would incur costs related to 
the loss of access entirely.
Use of TANs
    Under the rule, data providers will be permitted to make available 
a TAN instead of, or in addition to, a non-tokenized account number. 
Several nondepository entity and data aggregator commenters provided 
examples of TANs enabling consumer payment revocation and stated that 
the use of TANs could increase costs for merchants and processers, 
which could be at least in part passed through to consumers. One 
nondepository entity estimated that the payments industry could face 
cumulative annual losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars if TANs 
were permitted under the rule. However, other data provider commenters 
described how TANs can mitigate fraud risk, including the ability for 
data providers to identify the point of compromise in case of a breach, 
the ability to revoke compromised payment credentials without 
disrupting other payment account activity, and limited risk of bank 
fraud because TANs are restricted to a particular third party.
Restrictions on Use and Retention
    The rule limits certain existing uses of both identifiable and de-
identified consumer data by third parties, including for the sale of 
covered data, cross-selling of other products or services, and targeted 
advertising, by specifying that these activities are not part of, or 
reasonably necessary to provide, any other product or service. 
Therefore, consumers must separately authorize third parties to 
collect, use, and retain covered data for these activities. This 
limitation may eliminate or lessen the profitability of certain 
business models. Third parties that generate revenue from sharing 
covered data with fourth parties--such as firms with no authorization 
to access data from the consumer--may lose much of that source of 
revenue. The CFPB does not have data on the number of third parties 
that share covered data, or the amount of revenue generated by sharing 
covered data. However, the CFPB notes that a survey of German app 
developers after the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 
was implemented found that while the share of app developers selling 
data was small, nearly all the developers that sold data experienced a 
decline in revenue post-GDPR.\174\ This finding may imply reductions in 
revenue for third parties that sell covered data under the rule. 
Several nondepository entity trade association commenters stated that 
small and mid-size businesses rely on targeted advertising and will 
lose revenue due to the proposed rule. Third parties that use covered 
data for the marketing of other products and services may also lose a 
source of revenue. Commenters did not provide quantitative data on the 
expected scope of potential revenue losses. The CFPB acknowledges that 
third parties may incur costs from altering business practices, or may 
lose revenue, as a result of these limitations. The CFPB does not have 
the necessary information to quantify this impact, but expects the 
overall impact on third parties will be small, as most third parties' 
revenue streams are not dependent on using covered data for these 
activities. Furthermore, third parties can still seek consumer 
authorization for covered data to be used for these activities as 
standalone products or services, or first party data could be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \174\ Rebecca Jan[szlig]en et al., GDPR and the Lost Generation 
of Innovative Apps, Nat'l Bureau of Econ. Rsch. Working Paper No. 
30028 (May 2022), https://www.nber.org/papers/w30028.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to these specific requirements, third parties will be 
required to collect, use, and retain covered data only as reasonably 
necessary to provide the consumer's requested product or service under 
the rule. The limits on retention of consumer data when consumers 
submit a revocation request or do not provide a new authorization 
within 12 months may reduce the data available for product improvement. 
Several third party small entity representatives highlighted through 
the SBREFA process how consumer data can enable

[[Page 90970]]

the development of new products and services and can inform research 
and public policy, even when only de-identified data are used for these 
secondary purposes. A nondepository entity trade association stated 
that there would be substantial costs to rework algorithms and product 
operations, which could not be used in their current form without de-
identified consumer data. Firms in the Aggregator Collection also 
reported using consumer data for functions other than transmitting data 
to data recipients, including the improvement of existing products, the 
development of new products, and risk management assessments. One 
nondepository entity commented that using properly de-identified or 
aggregated data for modeling or developing new products leads to no 
harm to consumers. Several commenters, including nondepository 
entities, nondepository entity trade associations, research institutes, 
data aggregators, and data providers commented that secondary use 
restrictions would reduce competition and innovation under the proposed 
rule. One research institute commented that current models and 
algorithms would become stagnant and could not be further improved 
without the use of covered data. Multiple research institutes and a 
consumer advocate commented that disallowing the use of de-identified 
data for product development would result in more expensive and less 
innovative products. Additionally, multiple data aggregators commented 
that the inability to use de-identified data would limit the ability to 
detect fraud.
    Though the rule may limit third parties' use of consumers' covered 
data for some extant purposes, the CFPB does not have data that would 
allow it to estimate the size of any costs due to the limitations on 
use, but notes that the rule permits uses that have separate product 
authorizations, and permits uses that are reasonably necessary to 
protect against or prevent fraud. The rule also allows the use of 
covered data for servicing or processing the product or service 
authorized by the consumer, or uses that are reasonably necessary for 
the improvement of the consumer's requested product or service, without 
a separate product authorization.
    Costs may be mitigated because third parties can continue to use 
data that they generate in providing their products and services. One 
bank trade association commented that there would be costs to tracking 
which data are subject to secondary use restrictions and which data are 
not. The CFPB acknowledges there could be such costs, but expects that 
these tracking costs would be small given that all consumer-authorized 
covered data would be subject to secondary use restrictions, and all 
first party data would not be subject to secondary use restrictions 
under the final rule. The cost estimates in the section on Implementing 
mechanisms for data deletion and record retention in part VI.E.1 would 
include such costs.
New Financial Data Processing Products or Services Definition
    The CFPB expects that the activities covered by the new financial 
data processing products or services definition in 12 CFR part 1001 are 
already within the scope of the CFPA's definition of financial product 
or service. As a result, the CFPB does not expect the new definition to 
impose costs on covered persons. However, to the extent that there are 
firms offering products or services that are within the new definition 
but outside of the existing financial product or service definition, 
the new definition could impose some potential costs. Such firms would 
be subject to the CFPA and its prohibition on unfair, deceptive, or 
abusive acts or practices, including potential enforcement by the CFPB. 
Under the baseline, the CFPB expects that such firms would already be 
subject to a prohibition on unfair or deceptive acts or practices under 
section 5 the Federal Trade Commission Act.\175\ Relative to the 
baseline, the new definition would add potential enforcement against 
unfair and deceptive acts or practices by the CFPB and require firms to 
be compliant with the prohibition on abusive acts or practices. Given 
the overlap with existing prohibitions, the CFPB expects the potential 
costs would be limited, and would include developing and maintaining 
policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the prohibition on 
abusive practices for firms that are not compliant with the CFPA at 
baseline. The CFPB does not have data to quantify these potential 
costs. The CFPB requested comment on whether any firms offer products 
or services that would be covered by the new definition but fall 
outside the definition of financial product or service, and if so, what 
potential costs those firms may face, but the CFPB did not receive any 
comments with this information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ 15 U.S.C. 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Costs to Consumers
    The rule may increase costs for data providers and third parties, 
potentially leading to higher prices for consumers or reduced access to 
certain products or services. The rule is likely to increase the 
availability of consumer-authorized data overall. While this may 
benefit many consumers, it could lead to higher credit costs for some 
consumers with data indicative of higher risk if the use of this data 
becomes standard for underwriting purposes. The rule would also require 
consumers to reauthorize access to their financial data annually, which 
involves relatively minor costs. In addition, consumers may incur small 
costs because of unintentional lapses in authorization. Finally, 
restrictions on secondary use of data may reduce revenues for some 
third parties, leading to changes in product offerings or pricing, and 
limiting not-for-profit research analyses that may benefit consumers.
Changes in Industry Structure
    Data providers will face additional compliance costs as a result of 
the rule. Some of these costs may be passed on to consumers in the form 
of higher prices for credit, lower deposit rates, or higher account 
fees. The CFPB does not have the data necessary to determine the extent 
to which additional compliance costs may be passed through to 
consumers, which depends on a number of factors including market 
competition.
    The rule does not require depository data providers that have 
assets below size standards specified by the Small Business 
Administration, which are currently set at $850 million, to comply with 
subparts B and C. Several data provider commenters and trade 
associations representing them, along with a nondepository entity trade 
association and a consumer advocate commented that the rule may lead to 
consolidation among depository institutions, which may lead to higher 
prices and less choice for consumers. One credit union commented that 
costs relative to net income would force about half of credit unions to 
cease operations. The CFPB expects that the noncoverage of depository 
entities with assets below $850 million addresses the concern that 
small depository institutions would be unable to operate profitably and 
in compliance with the rule. For example, the median credit union in 
2024 had $57 million in assets and would thus not be covered by the 
data provider provisions of the rule, and overall, 89 percent of credit 
unions are below the coverage threshold. While it is possible that the 
rule could influence decisions about consolidation for some 
institutions above the coverage threshold, the CFPB expects any effect 
to be small given the relatively large size of covered institutions. 
The CFPB did

[[Page 90971]]

not receive any other data in comments that allows for a more precise 
estimation of whether institutions would choose to consolidate as a 
result of the rule.
    Many of the largest depository data providers either already offer 
third party data access that meets many of the requirements of the rule 
or are developing such functionality, and thus their additional costs 
of complying with the rule will be more limited. While the CFPB does 
not have information to precisely estimate the number of consumers with 
accounts at such data providers, the available data suggest that the 
number is large. The Provider Collection indicates that, as of 2022, at 
least 51 million consumers had connected accounts to third parties 
through credential-free interfaces. This count of 51 million consumers 
likely understates the true number of consumers who have such access 
for two reasons. First, it does not include the consumers at 
institutions in the Provider Collection who have access to, but have 
not yet connected to, this type of access functionality. Second, it 
does not include consumers at other institutions--not included in the 
Provider Collection--that have established interfaces for third party 
access that meet many of the requirements of the proposal. It could, 
however, count consumers more than once if they have an account at more 
than one institution included in the Provider Collection. Overall, the 
CFPB expects that substantially more than 51 million consumers already 
have accounts at institutions that will face more limited costs of 
complying with the provisions. Consumers who only have accounts at 
these institutions are likely to incur minimal costs passed on by data 
providers due to the rule because the institutions where they have 
accounts will face smaller costs. One credit union trade association 
commenter stated that the rule will accelerate a transition to digital 
services and reduce the number of branches, which some populations, 
such as older consumers, rely on. The CFPB does not have data to 
precisely analyze this claim but finds it unlikely that the rule will 
result in many branch closures. In 2023, only 9 percent of Americans 
said that they most often managed their bank account by visiting a 
branch.\176\ Thus, the industry has already experienced a dramatic 
shift toward online services, and the margin for consumers to 
transition toward digital banking and cease visiting bank branches, 
leading to branch closures that affect older consumers, is small. Since 
the CFPB expects that all or nearly all covered data providers already 
have a consumer interface, it is likely that consumers interested in 
online services already conduct much of their banking online. Despite 
few consumers preferring to manage an account by visiting a branch, the 
number of bank branches nationwide has declined only 16 percent from 
its peak in 2012 and actually grew slightly between 2022 and 2023.\177\ 
Further, branches serve small businesses in addition to consumers, so 
are not supported by consumers alone.\178\ A credit union trade 
association commented that financial institutions could be discouraged 
from adopting a consumer interface if they do not already have one 
because of the costs associated with the proposed rule. As discussed in 
part IV.A.3., the CFPB has determined that all or nearly all 
depositories that do not currently have a consumer interface are small 
depository institutions and therefore will not be required to comply 
with the final rule's requirements for data providers. In addition, 
coverage in the final rule is no longer determined by the presence of a 
consumer interface, and thus there is no disincentive to adopt a 
consumer interface created by the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \176\ Press Release, Am. Bankers Ass'n, National Survey: Bank 
Customers Use Mobile Apps More Than Any Other Channel to Manage 
Their Accounts (Oct. 26, 2023), https://www.aba.com/about-us/press-room/press-releases/consumer-survey-banking-methods-2023.
    \177\ See Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., BankFind Suite: Find Annual 
Historical Bank Data, https://banks.data.fdic.gov/explore/historical/?displayFields=STNAME%2CTOTAL%2CBRANCHES%2CNew_Char&selectedEndDate=2023&selectedReport=CBS&selectedStartDate=1934&selectedStates=0&sortField=YEAR&sortOrder=desc (last visited Oct. 16, 2024).
    \178\ For example, Community Reinvestment Act data suggests that 
branches are important in small business lending. Elliot Anenberg et 
al., The Branch Puzzle: Why Are there Still Bank Branches?, FEDS 
Notes (Aug. 20, 2018), https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/why-are-there-still-bank-branches-20180820.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effects of Greater Information Sharing
    The rule will enhance third party access to consumers' financial 
data, which may be used in third parties' credit underwriting 
decisions. The ability for firms to screen customers using information 
generally increases total value in the market but may transfer value 
from some consumers to firms. Some consumers will likely benefit, but 
other consumers may be worse off. While the CFPB understands that, 
currently, lenders do not commonly use cash-flow data in underwriting 
to identify consumers who are a higher risk than the information on 
traditional credit reports would predict, it is possible that the 
market will evolve to use cash-flow data in this way as it becomes more 
accessible. As a benefit, increased information about consumers could 
lead lenders to offer some consumers cheaper credit, if, for example, 
the information accessed from data providers is viewed by third party 
lenders as indicating that the consumer is a lower credit risk than a 
traditional credit report would reveal. More information, however, 
could result in some consumers being charged higher prices or not being 
offered credit if the cash-flow information reveals what a lender views 
as a signal that a consumer is a higher credit risk than the lender 
would have assessed without the consumer-authorized information.\179\ 
Even though it will be the consumer's choice whether to authorize 
access to their covered data, it is possible that a lender may view a 
consumer's decision not to authorize the sharing of their data as a 
negative signal of credit risk and raise the price of credit or refuse 
to offer a loan.\180\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \179\ For example, Jansen et al. (2022) study an opposite 
shock--the removal of information, instead of the addition--and find 
that removing bankruptcy information from credit reports 
redistributes consumer surplus from consumers who have never 
experienced bankruptcy to consumers with a previous bankruptcy. Mark 
Jansen et al., Data and Welfare in Credit Markets (Jan. 28, 2022), 
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4015958. Nelson 
(2023) finds that limiting the information that credit card issuers 
were able to use decreased prices for some high-risk borrowers and 
increased prices for some low-risk borrowers, but on aggregate 
raised consumer surplus. These are two examples of how the removal 
of information that can be used in crediting decisions may shift 
surplus towards consumers who appear to have lower repayment risk 
after the information removal. Scott T. Nelson, Private Information 
and Price Regulation in the US Credit Card Market, Univ. of Chic. 
Booth Sch. of Bus. (Aug. 4, 2023), https://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/-/media/faculty/scott-nelson/research/private-information-and-price-regulation-in-the-us.pdf. The CFPB expects that the following 
effects would occur under the rule: third parties will have access 
to more information which will increase total surplus and will 
likely increase surplus for those who appear to have lower repayment 
risk with the additional information relative to those who appear to 
have higher repayment risk with the additional information.
    \180\ He, Huang and Zhou (2023) develop a model in which 
consumers who choose not to share data are worse off under an open 
banking system due to lenders taking opting out of data sharing as a 
sign that a consumer is a high credit risk. Zhiguo He et al., Open 
banking: Credit market competition when borrowers own the data, 147 
J. Fin. Econ. 449 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2022.12.003. Similarly, Babina et al. (2023) develop a 
model showing that when open banking policies enable the addition of 
banking data to screening or pricing decisions, higher-cost 
consumers can be worse off even if they opt out of sharing 
information because opting out sends a negative signal to lenders. 
Tania Babina et al., Customer Data Access and Fintech Entry: Early 
Evidence from Open Banking, Stanford Univ. Graduate Sch. of Bus. 
Rsch. Paper (Sept. 7, 2023), https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4071214.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 90972]]

    Overall, the increased availability of consumer-authorized data 
will allow lenders to underwrite and price more efficiently. This will 
likely lead to greater credit access overall, with relatively greater 
access or lower prices for lower risk borrowers who share data, but 
relatively less credit access or higher prices for borrowers who are 
higher risk or choose not to share data. The CFPB does not have the 
data necessary to quantify these effects.
Time Cost of Reauthorizing Third Party Access Annually
    Under the rule, a third party will need to limit the duration of 
collection of covered data to a maximum period of one year after the 
consumer's most recent authorization. To collect covered data beyond 
the one-year period, the third party will need to obtain a new 
authorization from the consumer no later than the anniversary of the 
consumer's most recent authorization. The reauthorization process 
should not be more burdensome than the initial authorization 
certification, but consumers will incur a small time cost to 
reauthorize the collection of their data. As discussed in the section 
on Costs to third parties in part VI.E.1 above, existing evidence 
suggests that many consumers may choose not to reauthorize a third 
party's access to their covered data. The CFPB interprets this evidence 
as suggesting that many consumers do not value the continued use of the 
third party product or service enough to continue authorizing the 
access of their covered data by the third party or that, given the 
quickly evolving market of third party products and services, consumers 
decide to access products or services through a different third party. 
One nondepository entity trade association commenter stated that the 
annual reauthorization limits the utility of pay-by-bank use cases for 
consumers. Instead, the CFPB interprets a consumer's decision to not 
provide a new authorization as evidence that they do not value the 
service more than the relatively small time cost incurred to 
reauthorize access. Further, consumers who currently pay by credit or 
debit card may face a similar reauthorization cost when a card expires 
or is replaced due to fraud, so these types of costs are not unique to 
the pay-by-bank model.
Potential Changes in Pricing Models Due To Use and Retention 
Limitations
    Changes that third parties make to their business models as a 
result of the rule may be passed on to consumers through higher prices 
for services provided by third parties. For example, the CFPB 
understands that some third parties obtain revenue by selling data that 
consumers provide to them with other third parties or, more commonly, 
by selling marketing information derived from such data. This may allow 
third parties to provide services to consumers free of charge. As 
discussed in the Costs to third parties part, there is evidence that 
firms in Europe that were sharing customers' data experienced a decline 
in revenue after data protection laws were enacted, suggesting that 
they may need to seek alternative sources of revenue.\181\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \181\ Rebecca Jan[szlig]en et al., GDPR and the Lost Generation 
of Innovative Apps, Nat'l Bureau of Econ. Rsch. Working Paper No. 
30028 (May 2022), https://www.nber.org/papers/w30028.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFPB expects that the rule will reduce the amount of targeted 
advertising using covered data. Several nondepository entity trade 
association commenters stated that consumers benefit from targeted 
advertising and prefer ad-supported services to fee-based services, and 
so the prohibition of the use of covered data for targeted advertising 
under the rule will harm consumers. But this overlooks that the rule 
does not prohibit targeted advertising. Providers can still use other 
forms of data for this purpose. And they can use covered data for this 
purpose, so long as they do so in the form of a standalone product or 
service, consistent with the terms of the rule. To the extent consumers 
benefit from targeted advertising, the rule provides means to realize 
such benefits.
    To the extent that the rule leads to third parties changing their 
business models, it is possible that some third parties will charge 
consumers directly for services that used to be free. The CFPB does not 
have data to estimate the share of consumers impacted or the magnitude 
of any corresponding price increases.
Reduction in Not-for-Profit Research Analyses
    Multiple research institutes and researchers commented that 
restrictions on secondary uses of consumer data would eliminate the use 
of open banking data in not-for-profit research analyses, which may 
harm consumers. Research institutes and researchers considered the 
possibility of an ``opt-in'' option for consumers to choose to share 
their covered data for the purpose of not-for-profit research, but 
expressed that research limited to this population would not generally 
be representative and therefore would be of limited value. These 
commenters requested an exception that would permit non-commercial 
secondary uses for de-identified data. The CFPB acknowledges that the 
rule will likely reduce the availability of consumer-permissioned data 
for nonprofit research purposes, and that this could have some indirect 
costs for consumers. The CFPB does not have data or evidence that would 
allow it to quantify these potential indirect costs.
3. Benefits to Covered Persons
Benefits to Data Providers
    At baseline, many third parties use screen scraping to access 
consumer data. The CFPB expects that screen scraping will decline under 
the rule. This is likely to benefit data providers because screen 
scraping involves security risks and heavy web traffic. By 
standardizing the terms of access and reducing the scope of 
negotiation, the rule is also likely to decrease the per-arrangement 
cost of enabling access to the developer interface. Finally, data 
providers that provide competitive service offerings, including 
potentially community banks and credit unions, could benefit from 
increased account switching by consumers.
Reduced Screen Scraping
    The CFPB understands that credential-based screen scraping creates 
data security, fraud, and liability risks for data providers, 
particularly because the credentials shared to facilitate data access 
also typically can be used to move funds. Furthermore, screen scraping 
can be used to gather data without data providers establishing a 
relationship with third parties or assessing data security risks. The 
CFPB cannot disaggregate fraud costs resulting from credential-based 
screen scraping from general costs of fraud, including measures to 
prevent fraud or insure against fraud-related damages. However, 
depository data providers have reported extensive costs related to 
preventing fraud and unauthorized transactions generally, and 
reimbursing consumers when such fraud occurs. During the SBREFA 
process, one small depository institution reported debit card fraud 
losses of 28 percent of their total revenue. Small entity 
representatives also noted that data providers typically pay premiums 
for insurance against catastrophic fraud losses, with plans typically 
covering losses in excess of $25,000, subject to certain restrictions. 
Through conversations with industry participants, the CFPB understands 
that account takeover fraud is the most likely

[[Page 90973]]

fraud risk that could be exacerbated by credential-based data access 
methods such as screen scraping.\182\ In this form of fraud, the bad 
actor gains access to the consumer's account and transfers funds, makes 
purchases, or opens accounts without authorization. The CFPB expects 
that the reduction in credential-based access due to the rule would 
lower the risk of account takeover fraud, providing a benefit to data 
providers through reductions in direct liability and decreased fraud 
insurance premiums, although it is unclear how much account takeover 
fraud is attributed to credential-based screen scraping. The CFPB does 
not have sufficient data to estimate how much the rule will lower 
account takeover fraud risk. However, even a small reduction would have 
large benefits for data providers.\183\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \182\ For example, consumers' account credentials may not be 
securely stored by third parties or fraudsters may induce consumers 
to share their credentials by impersonating a legitimate third 
party.
    \183\ For example, a 3 percent reduction in ATO fraud risks 
would generate an expected annual benefit of $330 million for data 
providers, based on industry research finding ATO fraud risks of 
approximately $11 billion annually. See PaymentsJournal, Javelin's 
Identity Fraud Study Highlights the Changing Nature of Fraud (May 
24, 2023), https://www.paymentsjournal.com/javelins-identity-fraud-study-highlights-the-changing-nature-of-fraud/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Along with the requirements to access only the data fields 
necessary to provide the specific product or service, the shift away 
from credential-based screen scraping will also tend to reduce overall 
traffic loads on the consumer-facing system and may reduce traffic 
loads overall. The CFPB does not have systematic data with which to 
estimate the net change in web traffic and the resulting decrease in 
necessary expenditures on digital infrastructure. The CFPB understands 
that the incremental cost of additional web traffic is small, and that 
reasonably anticipated reductions in traffic are likely to provide 
minimal benefits to data providers. In a comment, a data aggregator 
concurred with the CFPB that transitioning to developer interfaces 
should generally reduce the number of data requests and traffic 
relative to screen scraping, thus reducing costs for data providers.
Reduced Onboarding Costs and More Standardized Terms of Access
    The CFPB understands that onboarding third parties is often 
resource intensive for data providers. In the Aggregator Collection 
responses, aggregators reported that negotiating an access agreement 
with a data provider could take between 50 and 4,950 staff hours of 
business relationship managers, software developers, lawyers, 
compliance professionals, and senior management, depending on the 
complexity of the negotiation. The median estimated time was 385 staff 
hours per agreement. Based on these responses, under the baseline the 
CFPB estimated a total cost of between $4,260 and $422,000, which 
varies depending on the complexity of the negotiation, with a median 
cost of around $32,825. Although these estimates were provided by data 
aggregators, the CFPB expects that these costs are also representative 
for data providers at baseline.
    For contract negotiations that would have occurred under the 
baseline, the CFPB expects that onboarding costs will decrease under 
the rule because many features of access agreements would be regulated 
by the rule and not subject to commercial negotiation, including 
requirements for interface reliability, interface queries, and the 
scope of data accessible via the interface. One market participant 
stated that in cases where data providers agree to use existing 
industry-defined standards there is essentially no need for negotiation 
and data providers can immediately begin updating their developer 
interfaces in line with the standard specifications. The CFPB expects 
that consensus standards will reduce onboarding costs in this way. The 
CFPB expects that under the rule nearly all data providers will use 
standardized onboarding arrangements that meet rule terms and the costs 
of establishing data access will be limited to ensuring third party 
risk management standards are satisfied and reviewing the arrangements. 
A non-small entity representative third party commenter stated that 
concluding this type of onboarding arrangement represents approximately 
20 percent of total negotiation time under the baseline.\184\ Based on 
this, the CFPB estimated in the proposal that negotiations under the 
rule would require roughly 80 staff hours on average. The required time 
to onboard third parties to developer interfaces may decline 
substantially over time as consensus standards are developed for 
certifying compliance with third party risk management standards. While 
some data providers and third parties may choose to enter into 
customized access arrangements that respect the terms of the rule, they 
will generally only do so when the perceived benefits exceed the costs 
described here. As discussed in the section on Costs to data providers 
in part VI.E.1 above, commenters stated that the CFPB had 
underestimated the costs of establishing data access arrangements. In 
response to the information in these comments, the CFPB is updating its 
estimate to 120 staff hours on average to onboard a third party to a 
developer interface. Therefore, the CFPB estimates that the rule is 
likely to reduce the cost of onboarding arrangements by $24,000 on 
average.\185\ Under the baseline, data providers would have continued 
to negotiate commercial access agreements with third parties and these 
benefits would not have applied to those agreements. As discussed in 
the section on Costs to data providers in part VI.E.1 above, the CFPB 
expects that the rule will cause data providers to onboard additional 
third parties relative to baseline. The cost of additional onboarding 
arrangements is analyzed in that part.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ See https://www.regulations.gov/comment/CFPB-2023-0011-0042.
    \185\ This estimate is based on estimated total hourly 
compensation of $89.99 multiplied by the difference between the 
median expected hours required at baseline, 385 hours, and the 
expected hours required under the rule, 120 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Restrictions on Third Parties' Use and Retention of Data
    The rule will also have some indirect effects on the value of first 
party data held by data providers. Under the baseline, third and first 
party data are both used for marketing and new product 
development.\186\ The rule will limit third party collection of 
consumer-authorized data to what is reasonably necessary to provide the 
consumer's requested product or service. Third party use and retention 
of covered data will also be subject to that limitation, which will 
limit the availability of covered data for marketing and for the 
development of new products outside the scope of the original 
authorization, to the extent that third parties cannot obtain or use 
data for these purposes through other means. While the CFPB does not 
have data to quantify the benefits to data providers, all else equal, 
this is likely to increase the value of first party covered data held 
by data providers, which generally does not have these restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \186\ For example, a firm might target advertising towards 
consumers who qualify for a particular credit product or who are 
likely to be particularly profitable customers or develop new 
products based on insights from a dataset of consumer transaction 
histories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Required Data Security Representations by Third Parties
    The rule will require authorized third parties to represent that 
they have reasonable security practices, in particular by representing 
that they implement the GLBA Safeguards

[[Page 90974]]

Framework. These practices are likely to benefit data providers by 
increasing certainty regarding their potential third party risks, and 
generally will require minimum data security standards among third 
parties. The CFPB expects this to generally reduce the likelihood of 
data security breaches or other incidents, but the CFPB does not have 
data to quantify the size of this benefit.
Potential Benefits From Increased Account Switching
    In general, consumers prefer financial institutions that provide 
better prices or customer experiences. As discussed in the section on 
Effects of increased data sharing on innovation and competition in part 
VI.E.4, the CFPB expects that the rule will improve consumers' ability 
to switch financial institutions. As a result, financial institutions 
that offer covered products with competitive prices and customer 
experiences may increase their market share due to the rule. This could 
particularly benefit community banks or credit unions that operate at a 
smaller scale and thus would have had comparatively smaller 
informational advantages relative to larger data providers under the 
baseline, as discussed in the section on Reduced informational 
advantages in part VI.E.1.
Benefits to Third Parties
Right to Access Data on Behalf of Consumers
    Under the rule, covered data providers are required to provide data 
to authorized third parties. Third parties will be able to access data 
from data providers that had not made data available under the 
baseline. Further, the rule's data reliability requirements will ensure 
that data access is consistently available across all data providers. 
The CFPB understands that, at baseline, connectivity failure rates 
between third parties and data providers are high, in part because many 
data providers do not facilitate data sharing with many third parties, 
so these requirements may lead to large increases in the proportion of 
consumers who are successfully able to share their data under the rule. 
Firms in the Aggregator Collection reported initial connectivity 
failure rates ranging from 28 percent up to 60 percent. The CFPB 
understands that some of these initial connectivity failure rates occur 
because the data provider denies the third party's request for data 
access, rather than because of low interface reliability, and so third 
parties will be able to reach more consumers under the rule's 
requirement that authorized third parties have access to covered data.
Prohibition on Data Access Fees
    The rule prohibits data providers from imposing fees on third 
parties for costs associated with covered data provision. Firms in the 
Aggregator Collection generally did not report paying fees to data 
providers for access to covered data per customer or per interface 
call, though a small number of annual or one-time payments were 
reported. Though these costs are currently limited, the provisions will 
ensure that the absence of fees under the baseline continues in the 
future, providing more certainty to third parties about their costs of 
accessing covered data. The CFPB does not have data to estimate the 
benefit to third parties of this prohibition on fees because of the 
uncertainty in how fees might have evolved under the baseline.
Reduced Negotiation Costs
    As described in the Benefits to data providers part, based on data 
and comments provided by third parties, the CFPB estimates that 
negotiation costs will fall by 70 percent under the rule, or an average 
savings of $24,000 per negotiated connection agreement. This will bring 
about substantial savings for third parties, particularly data 
aggregators. The reduction in negotiation costs may also allow 
additional third parties to enter into access agreements with data 
providers directly, potentially saving on expenses paid to aggregators 
under the baseline.
More Frequent Access to Data
    The rule prohibits covered data providers from unreasonably 
limiting the frequency of third party requests for covered data and 
from delaying responses to those requests. Based on responses to the 
Provider Collection and conversations with industry participants, the 
CFPB is aware that some large covered data providers that offer 
developer interfaces currently impose access caps. Third parties would 
benefit from the ability to access consumer data as often as is 
reasonably necessary to provide the requested service. One firm in the 
Aggregator Collection reported spending ``significant resources'' to 
manage its traffic in order to avoid access cap limits. Additionally, 
an aggregator in the Aggregator Collection reported spending resources 
to persuade large financial institutions to raise or eliminate access 
caps.
    In addition to reducing costs associated with managing and limiting 
traffic, third party services may become more valuable to consumers 
when third parties can access consumer data more often.\187\ As a 
result, the CFPB expects that third party revenue will increase from 
the removal of unreasonable access caps under the rule. The CFPB does 
not have data to quantify these benefits for third parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \187\ For example, an app that warns consumers when the funds in 
their checking account fall below a predetermined threshold is 
generally more valuable to consumers when it can access data about 
their checking accounts more often.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Improved Accuracy of Data
    The rule will require that data providers have policies and 
procedures reasonably designed to ensure the accuracy of data 
transmitted through their interfaces. In addition, the rule provides a 
consensus standards framework for several factors that third party 
small entity representatives reported as reducing accuracy, including 
data access reliability, inconsistencies in data field availability and 
formatting, and inaccuracies in screen scraped data.
    The CFPB understands from the Aggregator Collection that access 
caps can prevent consumers from obtaining their most up-to-date data 
when a third party has surpassed its data limit. The removal of 
unreasonable access caps under the rule will reduce such issues. The 
rule will also require that a data provider make available the most 
recently updated covered data that it has in its control or possession 
at the time of a request, further ensuring that third parties will be 
more likely to have up-to-date data than under the baseline.
    The transition away from screen scraping will lead to more 
consistency in the data fields that are available across all data 
providers and in data field formatting, and may reduce costs associated 
with ensuring that consumer data are accurate, particularly once 
consensus standards are established. One data aggregator reported more 
frequent inaccuracies for data accessed through screen scraping, as 
well as the need to allocate more resources to meet accuracy standards 
for screen scraped data. The CFPB understands that once compliant 
developer interfaces are established, third parties will need to 
transition away from screen scraping, which will reduce the costs 
associated with maintaining accuracy in screen scraped data.
    Costs associated with maintaining accuracy in consumer data will 
not be eliminated altogether, as the rule will require that third 
parties ensure that covered data are accurately received from data 
providers, and accurately provided to other third parties, if 
applicable. The CFPB expects that the increased accuracy of data 
received

[[Page 90975]]

from data providers will simplify third party procedures for meeting 
data accuracy standards. Third party products and services are likely 
to become more valuable to consumers when data received from data 
providers is more accurate and reliable. The CFPB expects that this 
will increase third party revenue.
Improved Service Quality Due To Improved Data Access
    As discussed in the Benefits to third parties: Prohibition on data 
access fees part, the rule will prevent data providers from charging 
fees to consumers or third parties for access to covered data, provide 
third party access to data from all covered data providers through 
compliant developer interfaces that meet reliability standards, 
eliminate unreasonable access caps, and improve the accuracy of 
received data. Furthermore, the rule clarifies that third parties are 
required to obtain authorization from consumers to access covered data, 
while data providers are permitted to confirm the scope of the third 
party's authorization. This will allow third parties to request the 
information that is reasonably necessary to deliver their product or 
service. These effects reduce third party costs of providing services 
to consumers and improve the quality of the services that they can 
provide. The CFPB expects that the ability to provide more valuable 
services to consumers at a lower cost would, over the short- to medium-
term increase profits for existing third parties and lead to increased 
entry into the market for third parties' services.\188\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ Third parties may experience an increase in investment 
under the proposed rule, in addition to a reduction in costs and 
improvement in service quality. Babina et al. (2023) study open 
banking polices adopted across 49 countries and find that fintechs, 
which include third party recipients of data, raised significantly 
more funding from venture capital following the implementation of 
open banking policies that require banks to share data with third 
parties. See Tania Babina et al., Customer Data Access and Fintech 
Entry: Early Evidence from Open Banking, Stanford Univ. Graduate 
Sch. of Bus. Rsch. Paper (rev. Sept. 2023), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4071214.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule is likely to enhance third party access to consumers' 
financial data, which could be used in third parties' credit 
underwriting decisions. Access to this data is likely to allow lenders 
to better differentiate between borrowers with different likelihoods of 
repayment and charge prices that are more aligned with potential 
borrowers' repayment risk, increasing underwriting profitability. As an 
example, the CFPB understands that access to consumer financial data 
enables some third party lenders to incorporate information about 
consumers' cash flow (i.e., depository account inflows and outflows) 
into their underwriting models. Industry research has shown that cash 
flow is predictive of serious delinquency, and that models including 
cash flow can distinguish between the repayment risks of consumers with 
similar traditional credit profiles.\189\ The CFPB expects that some 
third party lenders will be able to identify and reach more consumers 
with low repayment risk under the rule, and may therefore experience an 
increase in profits. The CFPB does not have data to quantify these 
benefits for third parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \189\ One credit scoring company found that adding cash flow 
data to its traditional model improved predictiveness by 5 percent 
for consumers with thin or new credit profiles. Supporting this 
finding, FinRegLab studied six non-bank lenders in the current 
system and found the cash flow variables in their underwriting 
models were predictive of serious delinquency. See Can Arkali, Icing 
on the Cake: How the FICO Score and alternative data work best 
together, FICO Blog (June 2023), https://www.fico.com/blogs/icing-cake-how-fico-score-and-alternative-data-work-best-together; 
FinRegLab, The Use of Cash-Flow Data in Underwriting Credit: 
Empirical Research Findings (July 2019), https://finreglab.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/FRL_Research-Report_Final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reduced Costs of Establishing and Maintaining Screen Scraping Systems
    The CFPB expects that third parties will cease screen scraping for 
covered data from covered data providers under the final rule. Based on 
the Aggregator Collection, the CFPB understands that maintaining screen 
scraping systems is more costly than maintaining developer interface 
connections. The reported ratio of staff hours spent on maintaining 
screen scraping data access to staff hours spent on maintaining 
interface data access ranged between 2.5 and 12. For aggregators that 
separately reported costs of maintaining data provider connections 
through both screen scraping and developer interfaces, the dollar cost 
of screen scraping ranged between $1.6 million and $7 million, or 
between $0.0005 and $0.0216 per access attempt; for developer 
interfaces, the reported dollar cost was between $1.5 million and $1.6 
million, or between $0.0001 and $0.0194 per access attempt. Each 
request made through a developer interface rather than through screen 
scraping leads to expected savings between $0.0004 and $0.0022. 
Cumulatively, the firms in the Aggregator Collection reported nearly 16 
billion screen scraping attempts in 2022. Under the rule, these screen 
scraping attempts would instead be made through requests to developer 
interfaces, leading to at least $6.4 million to $35.9 million worth of 
annual savings for data aggregators, based only on information supplied 
by firms in the Aggregator Collection. Aggregators' savings may be 
passed on to data recipient third parties through lower prices for 
aggregator services. The CFPB expects that third parties' cost per 
access attempt will fall under the rule because screen scraping is more 
costly for third parties than accessing data through developer 
interfaces, and third parties will transition to only accessing covered 
financial data through interfaces.
Increased Standardization
    The CFPB expects that the cost of accessing consumer data will 
decrease not only through reductions in onboarding arrangement costs 
and screen scraping costs, but also because the rule incentivizes the 
industry to adopt consensus standards and requires standardized 
formats, including formats of data and communication protocol formats. 
The rule also clarifies which party is responsible for obtaining 
authorization from the consumer. The CFPB expects that increased 
standardization will be facilitated by one or more standard-setting 
bodies recognized by the CFPB, as outlined in the Industry Standard-
Setting Final Rule.\190\ One nondepository entity commenter expressed 
an expectation that this standardization will lead to increased market 
consolidation for data aggregator services. However, in order to deny 
covered data access to a third party, data providers will need to meet 
the rule's requirements for reasonable denials. Data providers will 
also need to apply their covered data access denial standards in a 
consistent and non-discriminatory manner under the rule. This will 
limit the scope for data providers to partner with only a small number 
of dominant data aggregators if other data aggregators seek to access 
covered data and meet the requirements for covered data access. 
Additionally, the data provider will need to provide covered data in a 
standardized and machine-readable format and use standardized 
communication protocols to confirm with consumers the scope of a third 
party's authorization to the consumer's covered data. This increased 
standardization of data access will reduce the cost of providing data 
aggregator services under the rule, further reducing barriers to entry 
and increasing competition for data aggregator services. The CFPB 
further expects that increased standardization of data access may 
reduce the costs for third parties integrating with data providers and 
allow some third parties that provide services to consumers to bypass 
data aggregators. An increase in

[[Page 90976]]

the share of third parties accessing data under access agreements with 
data providers would tend to reduce any degree of market power that 
data aggregators would enjoy under the baseline and will tend to reduce 
access prices for third parties. One small entity representative shared 
in the SBREFA process that aggregator costs represent its single 
largest budgetary line item, at approximately 10 percent of monthly 
expenditures. Data aggregators in the Aggregator Collection reported a 
wide range in fees charged to data recipient third parties depending on 
the recipient's size, minimum commitments, and access volume. Reported 
median annualized fees ranged between $2,000 and $6,000. Average 
annualized fees ranged between $40,000 and $70,000, demonstrating that 
a small number of data recipients pay substantially more fees than 
average.\191\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \190\ 89 FR 49084 (June 11, 2024).
    \191\ For example, responses in the Aggregator Collection 
suggested that a smaller number of data recipients may pay 
annualized fees totaling several million dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule may make it comparatively less expensive for third parties 
to connect directly with data providers, rather than contracting with 
one or more data aggregators. Because a direct connection with a data 
provider is a substitute for aggregator services, a decrease in the 
cost of direct connections would likely decrease the price of 
aggregator services. However, because aggregators spread the costs of 
establishing data access agreements with each data provider across many 
authorized third parties, aggregators are likely to retain an advantage 
from scale in providing access. This advantage may decline over time 
with consensus standard development, which may reduce friction and cost 
associated with establishing and maintaining bespoke connections to 
each data provider. The CFPB does not have data to estimate the net 
benefits to data aggregators or data recipients due to increased 
standardization of data access.
4. Benefits to Consumers
    The rule will likely increase consumers' ability to access their 
covered data through third parties as desired. This increase may result 
in more third party products and services that consumers find useful in 
the marketplace. The use of credential-free data access will make this 
sharing possible without consumers revealing their credentials to third 
parties, reducing the potential harms that consumers may experience due 
to data breaches or similar incidents. Consumers will also have 
increased control over how third parties use their data, since third 
parties will no longer have indefinite authorization to use a 
consumer's covered data or to use it for reasons other than what is 
reasonably necessary to provide the product or service. The rule will 
likely have important secondary benefits for consumers as well, for 
example through the development of new underwriting methods or 
increasing competition among data providers or third parties. Finally, 
the potential effects of the new financial data processing product or 
service definition are discussed below.
Right to Third Party Data Access
    The rule will require data providers to facilitate consumer 
instructions to provide authorized third parties with covered data. As 
discussed in the section on Benefits to third parties in part VI.E.3, 
consumers' initial account connection attempts through authorized third 
parties experience high failure rates, and the rule benefits both 
consumers and third parties by guaranteeing authorized third parties 
the right to access covered data. Under the rule, data providers will 
be required to offer a developer interface with commercially reasonable 
performance, including a proper response rate in excess of 99.5 
percent. This will benefit consumers by increasing the quality of third 
party products and services as well as the likelihood that consumers 
are able to use them at all. As discussed in the section on Benefits to 
third parties in part VI.E.3, the CFPB expects that third parties' 
costs of establishing connections with data providers will decline as a 
result of the rule, and this may benefit consumers to the extent that 
lower costs are passed through to them.
    Further, guaranteed access to consumer authorized covered data will 
likely increase investment in third parties that request that data, 
providing consumers with more options in the marketplace and increasing 
competition.\192\ As evidenced by the estimated 100 million consumers 
who have authorized third party data access discussed in the section on 
Baseline in part VI.D above, consumers have substantial demand for 
financial products and services offered by third parties, which may 
feature more convenient and automated means of gathering and using 
consumers' financial data relative to legacy financial service 
providers.\193\ The CFPB expects that an expanded range of third party 
products and services will increase competition and innovation, 
offering important secondary benefits to consumers, including improved 
credit access and lower prices, discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \192\ For example, Babina et al. (2023) find that after other 
countries implemented open banking policies, venture capital 
investment in fintech companies increased significantly on average 
and the number of new entrants in the financial advice and mortgage 
markets increased. Tania Babina et al., Customer Data Access and 
Fintech Entry: Early Evidence from Open Banking, Stanford Univ. 
Graduate Sch. of Bus. Rsch. Paper (rev. Jan. 22, 2024), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4071214.
    \193\ As an example of how this can potentially increase access 
to credit for underserved populations, Howell et al. (2022) find 
that automation of underwriting processes for small business lending 
are associated with a higher share of loans being made to Black 
borrowers. Sabrina T. Howell et al., Lender Automation and Racial 
Disparities in Credit Access, Nat'l Bureau of Econ. Rsch. Working 
Paper No. 29364 (Nov. 2022), https://www.nber.org/papers/w29364.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several bank commenters argued that the costs of the rule exceed 
the consumer benefits, and a bank and bank trade association argued 
that the costs of the developer interface exceed consumer benefits, 
especially for small data providers. The CFPB acknowledges, as 
discussed in the section on Costs to data providers in part VI.E.1 
above, that data providers will incur costs associated with meeting 
developer interface requirements. The CFPB expects consumers to enjoy 
substantial benefits as a result of the ability to share consumer-
authorized data with third parties as provided by the rule, such as the 
benefits described in the effects of increased data sharing on 
innovation and competition part. These benefits could reach over $1 
billion annually even with relatively small increases in competition 
and account switching, as discussed in a more detailed analysis in this 
part. In addition, the non-coverage of depository institutions with 
assets below $850 million described in the rule alleviates the 
compliance costs for small depository institutions and substantially 
reduces the costs of the rule as a whole.
    Commenters questioned the coverage of many data elements, but the 
CFPB expects that all data elements required by the rule provide 
consumer benefit. One bank argued that the costs of providing certain 
data elements, such as whether a borrower entered into an arbitration 
agreement as contained in account terms and conditions, is not 
outweighed by the benefits. Additionally, bank trade association, 
research institute, and credit union commenters stated that the 
consumer benefits of the requirement to provide terms and conditions do 
not outweigh the costs. The CFPB expects that as a general matter the 
provision of terms and conditions will benefit consumers

[[Page 90977]]

by, for example, facilitating comparison shopping. Consumer knowledge 
of whether or not they are subject to an arbitration agreement will aid 
consumers in understanding their legal rights, which is a benefit in 
itself. The same commenters also argued against the inclusion of 
pending transactions stating that, for example, pending transactions 
may change in amount once settled. The CFPB expects that providing 
information about pending transactions can benefit consumers by, for 
example, alerting them about potential fraudulent charges, alerting 
them if they might be close to overdrafting, or allowing them to view 
their remaining credit limit on credit cards. These features have clear 
use cases in, for example, account monitoring and personal financial 
management. Based on the Aggregator Collection, tens of millions of 
inquiries were submitted for personal financial management and account 
monitoring in 2022. A bank trade association commented that providing 
data on rewards credit per transaction would be costly and that no 
evidence of benefits was provided. The CFPB expects that rewards 
programs information will help consumers comparison shop, and use any 
awards they accrue optimally. The CFPB does not have the data to 
perform a quantitative analysis, but the benefits from providing this 
information accrue to consumers over the long run, whereas the marginal 
cost of providing this information is limited and mostly incurred as a 
one-off, or fixed, expense. Accordingly, the CFPB has determined that 
the potential consumer benefits can be significant in relation to 
costs, warranting the inclusion of this information. Some nondepository 
entity trade association, bank, and research institute commenters 
stated that the risks of requiring information to initiate payments 
outweighs the benefits to consumers. While the CFPB does not have data 
to perform a quantitative analysis, the CFPB has determined that 
requiring information to initiate payments supports highly beneficial 
consumer use cases such as account switching and making payments.
    A credit union trade association commented that the CFPB should 
analyze whether data on non-covered products like mortgages is less 
beneficial to consumers than included data like credit card rewards, 
scheduled bill payments, and terms and conditions. The CFPB expects 
access to these types of covered data will benefit consumers. For 
example, information on scheduled bill payments has a clear personal 
financial planning benefit. The CFPB may pursue another rule in the 
future to cover other products, and has determined that the products 
and data covered by the current rule benefit consumers, as described in 
this part and in part IV.A.2.
    One bank trade association argued that there is no consumer benefit 
to the requirement that data providers provide public quantitative 
performance metrics. The CFPB expects that this requirement will enable 
consumers and others to verify that data access is being provided 
consistently with the rule's requirements, and that consumers will 
benefit indirectly as the metrics will facilitate supervision and 
improve compliance with the rule. A commenter also stated that there is 
no consumer benefit to requiring three years of record retention 
instead of two. The CFPB has determined that a three-year record 
retention period provides sufficient information to conduct its exams 
and investigations, which, by enhancing compliance, benefit consumers.
    One nondepository entity and two nondepository trade organizations 
argued that there is no benefit to covering digital wallets because 
transaction information is available more directly from bank account or 
credit card providers. As described in part IV.A.2, the CFPB expects 
that consumers will benefit from the rule's coverage of digital wallets 
because digital wallets may possess data from several depository 
institutions and account types, and because a digital wallet may offer 
a more convenient method for some consumers to provide third parties 
with consumer-authorized data. Further, a digital wallet may include 
information not available to the account-holding data provider, such as 
the time and location of the payment.
    One community bank trade association commented that there is no 
evidence of significant demand among community bank customers for 
sharing data with third parties. The rule does not cover small 
depository institutions, and given the substantial demand for data 
sharing demonstrated in the Aggregator Collection and Provider 
Collection and the increasing availability of third party services, the 
CFPB finds it unlikely that there are institutions covered under the 
rule with little or no demand for data sharing among its customers.
Credential-Free Access--Increased Privacy, Reduced Data Breach Risks
    Under the rule, data providers will be required to create an 
interface that can be used to share covered data with third parties 
without consumers' credentials being held by the third party. Many 
third parties currently use screen scraping techniques or credential-
based APIs to access consumer information, which requires the consumer 
to provide the third party with their username and password for the 
data provider's website. This current practice may expose consumers to 
greater risk if a third party experiences a data breach. Such data 
breaches can be very costly for consumers. While the CFPB does not have 
data to estimate the resulting consumer benefits of credential-free 
access, the academic and practitioner literature indicates that the 
associated benefits can be substantial.\194\ Courts have approved large 
settlements in cases where data breaches affected financial service 
providers.\195\ It is common for consumers to have their personal 
information compromised. For example, a 2019 Pew Research Center survey 
found that in the past 12 months, 28 percent of respondents reported 
having someone make fraudulent charges on their debit or credit card, 
take over a social media or email account without permission, or 
attempt to open a credit account in their name.\196\ Under the rule, 
consumers would benefit from a reduced likelihood that third party data 
breaches would expose their account login information, since they would 
no

[[Page 90978]]

longer have to give third parties their account credentials in order 
for the third party to access covered data. If the third party 
experienced a data breach it would be less likely to compromise the 
consumer's account since the breach would no longer potentially include 
the consumer's account access credentials. This in turn may reduce the 
risks of unauthorized transfers or other fraudulent account activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \194\ Albon et al. (2016) surveyed more than 6,000 consumers and 
found that in the previous year, 26 percent reported receiving a 
data breach notification. When asked about the costs that the data 
breach imposed on them, 68 percent of consumers whose data was 
breached estimated a nonzero financial loss, with a median value of 
$500. Lillian Ablon et al., Consumer Attitudes Toward Data Breach 
Notifications and Loss of Personal Information, RAND Corp. (2016), 
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1100/RR1187/RAND_RR1187.pdf. A study of identity fraud by Javelin 
Strategy found that the average consumer who identified as a victim 
of identity fraud lost $1,551 and spent nine hours resolving the 
issue. Javelin Strategy, Identity Fraud Losses Total $52 Billion in 
2021, Impacting 42 Million U.S. Adults (Mar. 29, 2022), https://javelinstrategy.com/press-release/identity-fraud-losses-total-52-billion-2021-impacting-42-million-us-adults. Consumers' liability 
for ATO fraud may be limited under Regulation E, but it is possible 
that not all consumers can or do successfully exercise their rights 
to limited liability.
    \195\ In 2019, a settlement for $190 million was approved in a 
data breach at Capital One that affected approximately 100 million 
consumers. Capital One, Information on the Capital One cyber 
incident (Apr. 22, 2022), https://www.capitalone.com/digital/facts2019/. A settlement of $425 million for consumers was reached 
in the 2017 Equifax data breach, which affected approximately 147 
million consumers. Fed. Trade Comm'n, Equifax Data Breach Settlement 
(Dec. 2022), https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/refunds/equifax-data-breach-settlement.
    \196\ Brooke Auxier et al., Americans and Privacy: Concerned, 
Confused and Feeling Lack of Control Over Their Personal 
Information, Pew Rsch. Ctr. (Nov. 15, 2019), https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/how-americans-think-about-privacy-and-the-vulnerability-of-their-personal-data/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One nondepository entity commenter argued that since the market is 
already shifting towards APIs, the added benefit of the rule does not 
outweigh the costs. As discussed in this part, the CFPB has determined 
that there are large potential benefits to consumers as a result of 
providers transitioning to credential-free access, and to the extent 
that data providers have already implemented interfaces meeting the 
requirements of the rule, the CFPB expects that these data providers 
will have lower costs of compliance. Further, the popularity of third 
party services and APIs highlights the need for safeguards to ensure 
consumer privacy. Another nondepository entity commenter stated that 
because some developer interfaces provide worse performance than legacy 
connection methods, shifting away from those legacy connection methods 
harms consumers. The CFPB has determined that the privacy and data 
security benefits of shifting to credential-free access outweigh any 
potential performance advantages of legacy methods under the baseline. 
Further, the CFPB expects the rule's performance standards for 
developer interfaces to improve the reliability of data access relative 
to screen scraping under the baseline. One third party and one consumer 
advocate commentator expressed concern that disallowing PII-based 
authentication methods could harm consumers without online accounts or 
credentials. The CFPB expects that all or nearly all consumers who wish 
to share consumer-authorized covered data with third parties either 
have an online account or the ability to create one. One data 
aggregator commentator expressed a concern that the transition away 
from screen scraping would harm consumers' ability to access accounts 
not covered by the rule, like mortgage and student loan accounts. 
However, the final rule does not affect screen scraping for accounts 
not covered by the final rule. Whether or not such screen scraping is 
permissible depends on other laws, such as the prohibition on unfair, 
deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, that form part of the 
baseline.
    In addition, for a range of reasons, as this final rule takes 
operational effect, the CFPB expects some data providers and third 
parties to have compelling incentives to transition voluntarily to 
credential-free interfaces for non-covered products that would have 
been accessed using credentials under the baseline. This would yield 
additional data security benefits to consumers.
    Several commenters expressed concern about potential fraud risks 
that may occur even under credential-free authorization of third 
parties. One consumer advocate commenter and one credit union commenter 
said that if data are more readily available as a result of the rule, 
it could increase the risk of financial abuse and fraud, particularly 
for older consumers. Two consumer advocate commenters also expressed 
concern that the rule could increase availability of joint account 
information to domestic abusers. Two research entity commenters and a 
bank commenter stated that consumers might particularly be vulnerable 
to fraudulent pay-by-bank transactions. The CFPB acknowledges that a 
bad actor could potentially gain fraudulent access to consumer-
permissioned data, but this risk exists under the baseline. The rule 
mitigates these risks through its authentication requirements and 
requirements for credential-free third party access. Practically, the 
CFPB expects that in order to connect a bank account to a new third 
party service, a bad actor would need access to the consumer's 
credentials for their covered account and potentially access to 
additional information or devices required for authorization, such as 
codes issued as part of two-factor authentication. These risks exist 
under the baseline, and the CFPB expects that any increased risks from 
greater use of consumer-permissioned data access are outweighed by the 
data security and privacy benefits of the rule.
Third Party Limitations on Collection, Use, and Retention--Ability To 
Be Forgotten, Increased Privacy, More Control Over Use of Own Data
    The rule will increase consumers' control over how their covered 
data are used by third parties. There is strong evidence that consumers 
value meaningful control over how their personal information is used 
and thus consumers will benefit from the rule. In a 2015 survey, the 
Pew Research Center found that 93 percent of Americans said that it was 
very or somewhat important to be ``in control of who can get 
information about you.'' \197\ One consumer advocacy stakeholder stated 
that under the baseline, consumers may not understand how third parties 
share their data due to difficult-to-understand disclosures and may 
also not understand the rights they may have to limit how their data 
are shared. The Pew Research Center found in another study that 70 
percent of Americans feel that their personal information is less 
secure than it was five years ago, 79 percent are very or somewhat 
concerned about how their personal information is being used by 
companies, and only 18 percent feel that they have a great deal of or 
some control over the data that companies collect about them.\198\ 
Eighty-one percent feel that the potential risks of personal data 
collection by companies outweigh the benefits. This evidence suggests 
consumers have a strong desire for meaningful control over how their 
personal information is used and thus consumers will benefit 
substantially from the rule. The CFPB does not have sufficient data to 
provide a quantitative estimate of these benefits to consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \197\ Pew Rsch. Ctr., Americans Hold Strong Views About Privacy 
in Everyday Life (May 19, 2015), https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/05/20/americans-attitudes-about-privacy-security-and-surveillance/pi_15-05-20_privacysecurityattd00/.
    \198\ Brooke Auxier et al., Americans and Privacy: Concerned, 
Confused and Feeling Lack of Control Over Their Personal 
Information, Pew Rsch. Ctr. (Nov. 2019), https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/how-americans-think-about-privacy-and-the-vulnerability-of-their-personal-data/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effects of Increased Data Sharing on Innovation and Competition
    Increased availability of consumer-authorized data to third parties 
could have a number of other indirect--but potentially large--benefits 
for consumers. For example, as discussed in the section on Costs to 
consumers in part VI.E.2 above, while increased availability of data 
could result in lenders assessing some consumers as higher credit risk 
than they would be otherwise and charging them higher prices, it is 
also likely to result in lenders assessing some consumers as lower 
credit risk and charging them lower prices. It is possible that a 
consumer could be denied a loan that they would have been granted in 
the absence of the use of consumer-authorized data in underwriting. If 
the loan was not affordable for the consumer, then this denial could 
benefit the consumer in the long term.
    Consumer-authorized data may be particularly useful for consumers 
who have a limited credit history or do not have a credit file with a 
nationwide consumer reporting company. Among consumers who do have 
credit scores, a study by FinRegLab found that cash-flow underwriting 
can help identify consumers who have low traditional credit scores but 
are actually a low

[[Page 90979]]

credit risk for lenders.\199\ It is possible that many consumers will 
experience increased access to credit or lower prices under the rule, 
to the extent that they are less able to share covered data with third 
parties under the baseline.\200\ Even without the rule, the Aggregator 
Collection shows that in 2022, tens of millions of data requests were 
made through those data aggregators for consumer data to be used for 
underwriting purposes.\201\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \199\ FinRegLab, The Use of Cash-Flow Data in Underwriting 
Credit (July 2019), https://finreglab.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/FRL_Research-Report_Final.pdf.
    \200\ For example, using data from a German fintech lender, Nam 
(2024) finds that borrowers across the credit score distribution 
benefit on average when they choose to share data with the lender, 
with lower credit score borrowers experiencing a larger increase in 
acceptance rates and higher credit score borrowers experiencing a 
larger decrease in interest rates. See Rachel J. Nam, Open Banking 
and Customer Data Sharing: Implications for Fintech Borrowers, SAFE 
Working Paper No. 364 (Mar. 20, 2024), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4278803. One credit union trade association 
commenter stated that the CFPB did not consider data the effects of 
open banking in Europe. While the CFPB does not have primary data to 
analyze the effects of open banking on firms and consumers in other 
countries, it considered studies such as this one in its analysis.
    \201\ These requests include requests for information relating 
to existing accounts, like credit card limit increases, as well as 
the underwriting of new loans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The use of consumer-authorized covered data by third parties may 
also benefit consumers through increased availability and quality of 
payment services. The availability of consumer-authorized covered data 
may improve payment services by, for example, making it easier to sign 
up for such services and allowing the service to verify a consumer's 
balance before initiating a payment to ensure that they are not 
overdrafting the consumer's account. In 2022, the Aggregator Collection 
shows nearly two billion requests for consumer data for facilitating 
payment services. Increased use of payment services is likely to 
benefit consumers.\202\ Easier person-to-person payments may help 
consumers send or receive money from friends and family to avoid 
overdrafting their bank accounts or incurring fees through other forms 
of borrowing. In addition to providing benefits for person-to-person 
payments, consumer-authorized data are increasingly used to facilitate 
consumer-to-business ``pay-by-bank'' purchases, with lower fees 
relative to some alternatives, some of which may be passed through as 
benefits to consumers. One consumer advocate commenter expressed a 
concern that consumer-authorized covered data could be used to 
determine eligibility for government benefits, and that inaccuracy in 
the data could harm consumers. The CFPB expects that if widespread 
inaccuracies were a problem with an application using consumer-
permissioned data to determine an eligibility for a program, it is 
unlikely that such an application would be used. A bank commenter 
raised a concern that covered data could be used to offer less 
competitive products by third parties. The CFPB acknowledges that third 
parties learn more about consumers though covered data, but notes that 
third parties' use of this data is limited by the rule to what is 
reasonably necessary to provide the consumer's requested service or 
product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \202\ For example, Balyuk and Williams (2023) find that low-
income consumers with increased exposure to a person-to-person 
payment platform are less likely to overdraft their bank accounts 
and more likely to borrow from family and friends using the platform 
if they have a low balance relative to their needs. See Tetyana 
Balyuk & Emily Williams, Friends and Family Money: P2P Transfers and 
Financially Fragile Consumers (Dec. 12, 2023), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3974749.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Increased availability of consumer-authorized covered data may also 
lower the costs for a consumer switching financial institutions in 
search of higher deposit rates, lower fees, better service, or lower 
rates on credit products. Recent research has found that digital 
banking technology affects the movement of deposits into and out of 
banks in response to market pressures.\203\ The provisions may make it 
easier for a consumer to move to a new institution by easing the 
transfer of funds and account information from the old institution to 
the new institution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \203\ Koont, Santos and Zingales (2023) find that in response to 
Federal Funds rate changes, deposits flow out of banks with an 
online platform more quickly. Naz Koont et al., Destabilizing 
Digital Bank Walls (Oct. 2023), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4443273. Erel, Liebersohn, Yannelis, and 
Earnest (2024) found that primarily online banks saw larger inflows 
of interest-bearing deposits when Federal Funds rates increased. 
Isil Erel et al., Monetary Policy Transmission Through Online Banks, 
Fisher Coll. of Bus. Working Paper No. 2023-03-015 & Charles A. Dice 
Ctr. Working Paper No. 2023-15 (June 3, 2024), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4459621.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even marginal improvements in consumers' ability to shop for and 
transfer deposits could have large potential benefits for consumers, 
given the substantial size of the deposit market and the dispersion in 
prices across institutions. Consumers with sizeable savings may benefit 
most from accounts offering higher interest rates, while consumers with 
limited funds may benefit most from accounts with low or no fees. 
Recent studies suggest there is potential for substantial gains on both 
measures. On interest rates, researchers have documented high average 
savings interest rates available from large online banks, substantially 
above average savings interest rates.\204\ On fees, the CFPB has found 
that although deposit account fees are trending lower since 2019, banks 
with over $1 billion in assets collectively earned $7.7 billion in 
revenue from overdraft and insufficient funds (NSF) fees in 2022.\205\ 
This is despite the availability of at least 397 deposit account 
products with zero overdraft and NSF fees, with options available in 
every state.\206\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \204\ Erel, Liebersohn, Yannelis, and Earnest (2023) found that 
in April 2023, there were at least 15 large online banks offering an 
average savings interest rate of 2.17 percent, compared to 0.28 
percent at other banks. Similarly, FDIC data from April 2023 show 
that, weighted by share of deposits, average savings interest rates 
were 0.39 percent. The authors also find that the online banks offer 
substantially higher rates for other products like certificates of 
deposit, individual retirement accounts, and money market deposit 
accounts. Isil Erel et al., Monetary Policy Transmission Through 
Online Banks, Fisher Coll. of Bus. Working Paper No. 2023-03-015 & 
Charles A. Dice Ctr. Working Paper No. 2023-15 (May 26, 2023), 
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4459621; Fed. 
Deposit Ins. Corp., FDIC National Rates and Rate Caps (Apr. 17, 
2023), https://www.fdic.gov/resources/bankers/national-rates/2023-04-17.html.
    \205\ Off. of Consumer Populations & Mkts., Consumer Fin. Prot. 
Bureau, Overdraft/NSF revenue down nearly 50% versus pre-pandemic 
levels (May 24, 2023), https://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/research-reports/data-spotlight-overdraft-nsf-revenue-in-q4-2022-down-nearly-50-versus-pre-pandemic-levels/full-report/.
    \206\ These accounts are certified as meeting the Bank On 
National Account Standards established by the Cities for Financial 
Empowerment Fund. See list of certified accounts at https://joinbankon.org/accounts/ (last visited Oct. 16, 2024), and current 
account standards, https://bankon.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Bank-On-National-Account-Standards-2023-2024.pdf 
(last visited Oct. 16, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule will likely improve consumers' ability to switch 
providers. As a result, the rule will have two benefits. First, those 
consumers who switch may earn higher interest rates or pay lower fees. 
To estimate the potential size of this benefit, the CFPB assumes for 
this analysis that of the approximately $19 trillion \207\ in domestic 
deposits at FDIC- and NCUA-insured institutions, a little under a third 
($6 trillion) are interest-bearing deposits held by consumers, as 
opposed to accounts held by businesses or noninterest-bearing 
accounts.\208\ If, due

[[Page 90980]]

to the rule, even one percent of consumer deposits were shifted from 
lower earning deposit accounts to those with interest rates one 
percentage point (100 basis points) higher, consumers would earn an 
additional $600 million annually in interest. Similarly, if due to the 
rule, consumers were able to switch accounts and thereby avoid even one 
percent of the overdraft and NSF fees they currently pay, they would 
pay at least $77 million less in fees per year.\209\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \207\ Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., Insured Institution Performance, 
17(2) FDIC Quarterly (2023) https://www.fdic.gov/analysis/quarterly-banking-profile/qbp/2023mar/qbp.pdf, and Nat'l Credit Union Admin., 
Quarterly Credit Union Data Summary (2022 Q4), https://ncua.gov/files/publications/analysis/quarterly-data-summary-2022-Q4.pdf.
    \208\ Derived from several data sources, the assumption that 
slightly under one third of total deposits are interest-bearing 
deposits held by consumers is based on assuming slightly under half 
of all deposits are held by consumers, and about 70 percent of 
consumers' deposits are interest bearing. First, in the most recent 
available 2019 data from the Survey of Consumer Finances, 
households' mean savings in transaction accounts and certificates of 
deposit was $48,803; see Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Rsrv. Sys., 
Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF), https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/scfindex.htm (last updated Apr. 5, 2024). The 2020 Census 
estimates that there were 127 million U.S. households, and the 
product of these two numbers yields an estimate of $6.2 trillion in 
deposits held by consumers; see Thomas Gryn et al., Married Couple 
Households Made Up Most of Family Households, America Counts: 
Stories, https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/05/family-households-still-the-majority.html. This is slightly under half of 
the $14 trillion in deposits based on Call Report data for 2019; 
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 2019 Summary of Deposits Highlights, 14(1) 
FDIC Quarterly (2020), https://www.fdic.gov/analysis/quarterly-banking-profile/fdic-quarterly/2020-vol14-1/fdic-v14n1-4q2019-article.pdf, Nat'l Credit Union Admin., Quarterly Credit Union Data 
Summary (2019 Q4), https://ncua.gov/files/publications/analysis/quarterly-data-summary-2019-Q4.pdf. The estimate for share of 
deposits that are interest bearing is derived from Figure A.3 in 
Erel, Liebersohn, Yannelis, and Earnest (2023). Isil Erel et al., 
Monetary Policy Transmission Through Online Banks, Fisher Coll. of 
Bus. Working Paper No. 2023-03-015 & Charles A. Dice Ctr. Working 
Paper No. 2023-15 (May 26, 2023), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4459621.
    \209\ Survey evidence suggests that a small share of consumers 
value overdraft as a form of borrowing while a majority would prefer 
that the transactions were declined; see The Pew Ctr. on the States, 
Overdraft America: Confusion an Concerns about Bank Practices (May 
2012), https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/
pcs_assets/2012/sciboverdraft20america1pdf. In addition, the CFPB 
has found that some overdraft practices can be unfair, if they could 
not be reasonably anticipated; Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, 
Unanticipated overdraft fee assessment practices, Consumer Financial 
Protection Circular (Oct. 26, 2022), https://www.consumerfinance.gov/compliance/circulars/consumer-financial-protection-circular-2022-06-unanticipated-overdraft-fee-assessment-practices/. This analysis assumes that those consumers who prefer 
overdraft would stay with institutions offering these services, 
while those switching would prefer accounts without overdraft fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second potential way consumers could benefit is through 
improved prices and service even for consumers who do not switch 
providers, due to the rule's effects on competition. Increased 
competition from improved online banking services and open banking 
services under the baseline may have already contributed to consumers 
receiving higher interest rates on deposits and paying lower fees in 
recent years.\210\ To estimate the scale of potential benefits from the 
provisions, if the rule further increases these competitive pressures 
such that average offered interest rates on deposits increase by even 
one basis point (0.01 percentage points), consumers would accrue an 
additional $600 million in annual benefits from interest even without 
moving their deposits. Similarly, if increased competitive pressures 
due to the rule caused banks to lower overdraft and NSF fees by one 
percent on average, consumers would benefit from at least $77 million 
in reduced fees annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \210\ Kang-Landsberg, Luck and Plosser (2023) find that the 
pass-through of the Federal Funds rate to deposit rates is 
increasing and nearing the levels seen in the early 2000s. Alena 
Kang-Landsberg et al., Deposit Betas: Up, Up, and Away?, Liberty St. 
Econ. (Apr. 11, 2023), https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2023/04/deposit-betas-up-up-and-away.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the effects in the deposit market, under the rule, a 
consumer's depository institution will no longer have a potential 
advantage in underwriting a loan based on the consumer's transaction 
data, which may increase competition and potentially lower interest 
rates on loan products for consumers. While these potential impacts are 
difficult to quantify, even marginal improvements in the interest rates 
or fees paid by consumers could have substantial benefits, given the 
size of consumer lending markets.
    The provisions will also make it easier for consumers to access 
their data through personal financial management platforms. This 
increased ability to access and monitor information about their 
personal finances could benefit consumers.\211\ The CFPB does not have 
data to quantify the resulting consumer benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \211\ Carlin, Olafsson, and Pagel (2023) find that increased 
access to a personal financial management platform substantially 
lowers overdraft fees. Bruce Carlin et al., Mobile Apps and 
Financial Decision-Making, 27 Rev. Fin. 977 (2023), https://academic.oup.com/rof/article/27/3/977/6619575. The evidence on this 
subject is mixed, however, as Medina (2021) finds that reminders to 
consumers to make credit card payments in a personal financial 
management platform increased the probability that consumers 
incurred overdraft fees and slightly increased overall net fees paid 
by consumers, since consumers were more likely to overdraft their 
bank account to pay their credit card bill. Paolina C Medina, Side 
Effects of Nudging: Evidence from a Randomized Intervention in the 
Credit Card Market, 34 Rev. Fin. Stud. 2580 (2021), https://academic.oup.com/rfs/article/34/5/2580/5903746.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Financial Data Processing Products or Services Definition
    The CFPB expects that activities covered by the new financial data 
processing products or services definition are already within the scope 
of the CFPA's definition of financial product or service. As a result, 
the CFPB does not expect the new definition to have benefits to 
consumers. However, to the extent that there are firms offering 
products or services that are within the new definition but outside of 
the financial product or service definition, the new definition would 
benefit consumers by increasing protections against unfair, deceptive, 
or abusive acts or practices. The CFPB does not have data to quantify 
these potential benefits. The CFPB requested comment on whether any 
firms offer products or services that would be covered by the new 
definition but fall outside the definition of financial product or 
service, and if so, what potential benefits to consumers could result 
from the new definition but did not receive any such comments.
5. Alternatives Considered
    The CFPB considered the impacts of several alternatives to the 
rule. These include alternatives that would allow secondary use of data 
by third parties in certain circumstances (i.e., through an opt-in 
mechanism allowing the consumer to consent to specific uses, while 
retaining a prohibition on certain high-risk secondary uses) or allow 
retention and use of de-identified data as an exception to the general 
limitation standard that otherwise limits retention.\212\ The CFPB 
considered covering Electronic Benefit Transfer accounts in the rule. 
The CFPB also considered alternatives specific to small entities, such 
as exemptions or longer compliance timelines, which are discussed in 
part VII.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \212\ Some additional alternatives are considered and discussed 
in part IV. For example, alternatives to the prohibition on fees for 
establishing and maintaining interfaces and for accessing data 
through interfaces are discussed in part IV.C.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rather than prohibiting secondary uses, the CFPB considered 
allowing some secondary uses through an opt-in mechanism while 
prohibiting certain high-risk secondary uses. Relative to the proposal, 
this alternative would generally benefit third parties by allowing 
additional uses of data and potentially impose costs on consumers by 
reducing their privacy and their control of how their data are used. If 
these secondary uses lead to new beneficial products and services 
offered by third parties, this alternative could benefit consumers 
relative to the proposal. If, however, the additional secondary uses 
are detrimental to consumers despite the consumer's opt-in consent, 
allowing such uses could harm consumers relative to the baseline.

[[Page 90981]]

The CFPB requested comment on whether any secondary uses should be 
allowed through an opt-in mechanism. The CFPB also requested comment on 
how potentially harmful secondary uses could be defined and prohibited 
under this alternative.
    Comments on whether any secondary uses should be allowed through an 
opt-in mechanism and on how potentially harmful secondary uses could be 
defined and prohibited are discussed in parts IV.D.4, VI.E.1, and 
VI.E.2. In general, commenters' arguments about the benefits, costs, 
and impacts of allowing some secondary uses were in line with the 
CFPB's analysis of the benefits, costs, and impacts of this 
alternative, with data provider commenters generally opposed to 
allowing secondary uses, third party commenters generally in favor of 
allowing some secondary uses, and with varied support for this 
alternative from consumer advocate and research organization 
commenters. For the reasons discussed in parts IV.D.4, VI.E.1, VI.E.2, 
VI.E.3, and VI.E.4, the CFPB has determined that the rule as finalized 
better achieves the intended outcome of section 1033 of the CFPA than 
this alternative.
    The CFPB also considered an exception to the general limitation 
standard for retention and use of de-identified data. Relative to the 
proposal, this alternative would generally benefit third parties by 
allowing the continued retention and use of de-identified consumer data 
after the general limitation standard would normally require the 
deletion of identified data. For example, de-identified data could 
potentially be used for product development, which would benefit third 
parties. These uses could also potentially benefit consumers through 
improved or new products. However, if the risk of reidentification 
remains for the consumers in de-identified data, the retention of such 
data creates a potential cost to consumers in privacy and fraud risks 
in the case of a data breach or misuse of data. In the proposal, the 
CFPB requested comment on whether there should be an exception to the 
general limitation standard for de-identified data, and if so, how de-
identification should be defined to limit risks to consumers.
    Comments on whether there should be an exception to the general 
limitation standard for de-identified data, and if so, how de-
identification should be defined are discussed in parts IV.D.4, VI.E.1, 
and VI.E.2. In general, commenters' arguments about the benefits, 
costs, and impacts of an exception for de-identified data were in line 
with the CFPB's analysis of the benefits, costs, and impacts of this 
alternative, with data provider commenters generally opposed to an 
exception, third party commenters and research organization commenters 
generally in favor of an exception, and with varied support for this 
alternative from consumer advocate commenters. For the reasons 
discussed in parts IV.D.4, VI.E.1, VI.E.2, VI.E.3, and VI.E.4, the CFPB 
has determined that the rule as finalized better achieves the intended 
outcome of section 1033 of the CFPA than this alternative.
    Finally, the CFPB considered including EBT accounts as covered 
accounts under the rule. Commenters stated that the impact analyses in 
the proposal did not consider the impact on EBT accountholders of not 
including EBT accounts in the rule. The CFPB considered the impacts of 
covering EBT accounts in the proposal, but found that several factors 
weighed against covering EBT accounts at this time. The CFPB 
acknowledges that many consumers use EBT accounts, and may not have 
reliable, convenient access to their account data provided by data 
providers. One nondepository entity commenter that provides third party 
data access to EBT accounts provided data on the prevalence and 
reliability of data sharing under their existing account connections. 
These data show that, under the baseline, rates of successfully 
accessing EBT data via existing third party connection methods range 
from 92 to 99 percent across EBT technology providers. Under the 
alternative in which such accounts were covered, consumers with EBT 
accounts would likely benefit from improved access through consumer 
interfaces, and improved third party access through developer 
interfaces. This improved access would benefit consumers by making it 
easier to monitor their account balances and transactions. However, 
improved data access for EBT accounts would generally not provide the 
type of account switching and competition benefits quantified in the 
rule for deposit and credit card accounts, as EBT accounts are 
generally provided by government agencies, rather than through 
competing private firms. Based on these considerations and those 
described in part IV.A.3, the CFPB declines to expand coverage to EBT 
accounts at this time.

F. Potential Impacts on Insured Depository Institutions and Insured 
Credit Unions With $10 Billion or Less in Total Assets, as Described in 
Section 1026

    Under the final rule, depository institutions (including credit 
unions, and including both federally insured and non-federally insured 
institutions) that satisfy the SBA definition of a small entity will 
not be required to maintain a consumer interface or developer 
interface. This is a change from the proposal. The final rule will 
require depository institutions with $10 billion or less in total 
assets (community banks and credit unions) but that do not satisfy the 
SBA definition of a small entity to maintain a consumer interface and a 
developer interface through which they receive requests for covered 
data and make that data available in an electronic form usable by 
consumers and authorized third parties. Compared to larger data 
providers, these institutions likely are more reliant on core banking 
providers and other service providers to comply, have fewer consumers 
and thus reduced efficiencies of scale, and may be less likely to act 
as data recipients in addition to being data providers. Compared to 
nondepository data providers of all sizes, these institutions may have 
more legacy systems that may be costly to modify to come into 
compliance with the proposal.
    As discussed in part VI.E.1, the CFPB expects that most 
depositories of this size will contract with a vendor for their 
interfaces for consumers and third parties. To examine the types of 
vendors used by covered institutions with $10 billion or less in total 
assets, the CFPB uses a data field in the NCUA Profile data which asks 
credit unions to indicate ``the name of the primary share and loan 
information processing vendor.'' \213\ While the vendor that provides 
core banking services to a credit union is not always the same vendor 
that provides digital banking services to the credit union, the CFPB 
expects that in many cases the same vendor provides both services. 
Based on the reported information for credit unions with between $850 
million and $10 billion in assets, the CFPB estimates that at least 83 
percent of such covered credit unions already use a vendor that offers 
interfaces for third parties. To measure the size of vendors used, the 
CFPB estimates that 97 percent of credit unions with between $850 
million and $10 billion in assets use a vendor with

[[Page 90982]]

at least 100 credit union clients, and 99 percent of such credit unions 
use a vendor with at least 50 credit union clients. The CFPB expects 
that many of these vendors would likely offer interfaces for third 
parties by the compliance date applicable for community banks and 
credit unions. However, the 1 percent of credit unions using smaller 
vendors are more likely to need to either switch vendors or build a 
developer interface in house. This could lead to higher costs, as the 
costs of switching to a new vendor may be larger as a proportion of 
total assets or revenues for smaller depositories relative to larger 
depositories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \213\ A ``share'' denotes a deposit account held by a credit 
union, and thus will include the Regulation E covered accounts under 
the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFPB does not have data on the vendors used by community banks, 
but expects that they may have a similar distribution of vendors as the 
comparably sized credit unions, and thus will face comparable costs to 
establish a developer interface.
    The CFPB requested comment on its analysis in the proposal of the 
potential impact on depository institutions and credit unions with $10 
billion or less in total assets. The CFPB did not receive comments 
specifically on its analysis of potential impacts on insured 
depositories and insured credit unions with less than $10 billion in 
assets, but comments that addressed impacts on small depositories, 
credit unions, and community banks are discussed in parts VI.E.1, 
VI.E.3, and VII.B.

G. Potential Impacts on Consumers in Rural Areas, as Described in 
Section 1026

    Relative to the proposal, the CFPB expects that the change in 
coverage for depositories that satisfy the SBA definition of small 
entities and the extended compliance timelines will substantially 
reduce the impacts of the rule on consumers in rural areas.
    Under the baseline, smaller banks hold a larger share of deposits 
in rural areas. For example, analysis by the Federal Reserve Board in 
2017 found that the market share of community banks (defined as assets 
of less than $10 billion) in rural areas is nearly 80 percent on 
average, compared with nearly 40 percent in urban areas.\214\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \214\ Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Rsrv. Sys., Trends in Urban 
and Rural Community Banks (Oct. 4, 2018), https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/quarles20181004a.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rural consumers are substantially less likely to use online banking 
than those who live in urban areas, defined to include all MSAs. For 
example, Benson et al. (2020) find that 56 percent of consumers in 
rural areas use online banking compared to 75 percent in large 
MSAs.\215\ This may generally mean that rural consumers could 
experience less of both the costs and the benefits of the rule. Some of 
the difference in online banking use may be explained by differences in 
access to high-speed internet, since as of 2018 consumers in rural 
areas were 20.8 percentage points less likely to have the option of 
subscribing to high-speed internet.\216\ Given that rural consumers are 
less likely to use online banking, they may also be less likely to use 
third party online services. The CFPB does not have comprehensive data 
on the geographic distribution of the use of third party products and 
services, though since rural consumers are less likely to have high-
speed internet access, they may be less likely to use third party 
products and services. The 2021 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and 
Underbanked Households found that 68.7 percent of consumers with bank 
accounts outside of MSAs had linked their bank account to a third party 
online payment service, compared with 72.3 percent in MSAs, showing 
that rural consumers are slightly less likely to use at least one type 
of third party product.\217\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \215\ David Benson et al., How do Rural and Urban Retail Banking 
Customers Differ?, FEDS Notes (June 12, 2020), https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/how-do-rural-and-urban-retail-banking-customers-differ-20200612.html.
    \216\ Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 2020 Broadband Deployment Report 
(released Apr. 24, 2020), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-50A1.pdf.
    \217\ Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 2021 National Survey of Unbanked 
and Underbanked Households, https://www.fdic.gov/analysis/household-survey/index.html (last updated July 24, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFPB requested comment on its analysis in the proposal of 
potential impacts on consumers in rural areas. One consumer advocate 
commenter noted that consumers in rural areas may be more likely to 
live in banking deserts and thus more reliant on online financial 
services like those offered by third parties. The CFPB expects that the 
final rule will increase the availability of such online services for 
consumers in rural areas who bank at covered data providers. The rule 
also implements additional protections for consumers using third party 
services. For consumers who bank at data providers not covered by the 
rule, the CFPB expects that data access will generally continue to 
improve as it has under the baseline, through voluntary adoption of new 
methods of third party data access.
    More general comments on impacts on consumers, including consumers 
who bank at community banks or credit unions, are discussed in parts 
VI.E.2 and VI.E.4.

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) \218\ generally requires an 
agency to conduct an IRFA and a FRFA of any rule subject to notice-and-
comment requirements. These analyses must ``describe the impact of the 
proposed rule on small entities.'' \219\ An IRFA or FRFA is not 
required if the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.\220\ The CFPB also is subject to certain additional 
procedures under the RFA involving the convening of a panel to consult 
with small business representatives prior to proposing a rule for which 
an IRFA is required.\221\ The CFPB did not certify that the proposed 
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities within the meaning of the RFA. Accordingly, 
the CFPB convened and chaired a Small Business Review Panel under 
SBREFA to consider the impact of the proposed rule on small entities 
that would be subject to that rule and to obtain feedback from 
representatives of such small entities. The Small Business Review Panel 
for the proposal is discussed in part VII.A. The CFPB is also 
publishing a FRFA. Among other things, the FRFA estimates the number of 
small entities that will be subject to the rule and describes the 
impact of that rule on those entities. The FRFA for this rule is set 
forth in part VII.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \218\ 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    \219\ 5 U.S.C. 603(a). For purposes of assessing the impacts of 
the proposed rule on small entities, the term ``small entities'' is 
defined in the RFA to include small businesses, small not-for-profit 
organizations, and small government jurisdictions. 5 U.S.C. 601(6). 
A ``small business'' is determined by application of SBA regulations 
and reference to the NAICS classifications and size standards. 5 
U.S.C. 601(3). A ``small organization'' is any ``not-for-profit 
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(4). A ``small governmental 
jurisdiction'' is the government of a city, county, town, township, 
village, school district, or special district with a population of 
less than 50,000. 5 U.S.C. 601(5).
    \220\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
    \221\ 5 U.S.C. 609.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Small Business Review Panel

    Under section 609(b) of the RFA, as amended by SBREFA and the CFPA, 
the CFPB must seek, prior to conducting the IRFA, information from 
representatives of small entities that may potentially be affected by 
its proposed rules to assess the potential impacts of that rule on such 
small entities.
    The CFPB complied with this requirement. Details on the SBREFA 
Panel and SBREFA Panel Report for the proposal are described in part 
II.A.

[[Page 90983]]

B. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

1. Statement of the Need for, and Objectives of, the Rule
    In section 1033 of the CFPA, Congress authorized and directed the 
CFPB to adopt regulations governing consumers' data access rights. The 
CFPB is issuing this rule primarily to implement CFPA section 1033 with 
respect to certain covered persons under the CFPA, although the CFPB is 
also relying on other CFPA authorities for specific aspects of the 
rule. This rule aims to (1) expand consumers' access to their financial 
data across a wide range of financial institutions, (2) ensure privacy 
and data security for consumers by limiting the collection, use, and 
retention of data that is not needed to provide the consumer's 
requested service, and (3) push for greater efficiency and reliability 
of data access across the industry to reduce industry costs, facilitate 
competition, and support the development of beneficial products and 
services. The CFPB is issuing this rule pursuant to its authority under 
the CFPA. The specific CFPA provisions relied upon are discussed in 
part III. See part VI.A for additional discussion of the objectives of 
the rule.
2. Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the 
IRFA, a Statement of the Assessment of the Agency of Such Issues, and a 
Statement of Any Changes Made in the Proposed Rule as a Result of Such 
Comments
    Trade associations representing small depository institutions 
requested that the CFPB provide flexibilities or less costly 
alternatives for small entities. Comments from such organizations and 
from small depository data providers themselves stated that the CFPB 
conducted an incomplete analysis of the disproportionate costs of the 
proposal on smaller entities. Data provider commenters also stated that 
the costs from the rule would work against small and mid-sized banks, 
since larger banks already have the functionality and are able to take 
advantage of scale. A data provider industry association commenter 
stated that the CFPB did not take into account the feedback received 
through the SBREFA process, and that the CFPB should consider how 
increased competition from fintechs will impact credit unions. A credit 
union industry association commented that the RFA analysis in the 
proposal was flawed in how it approached credit union's costs as data 
providers because it did not take into account the cumulative 
regulatory impact of different rulemakings on credit unions.
    The CFPB has determined that it is appropriate to not finalize the 
proposed coverage of the rule, such that small entity depositories are 
not covered as data providers. As a result, under the final rule, small 
entity depositories will not face any costs to maintain a consumer or 
developer interface due to the rule.
    The CFPB expects that this change will address the concerns of 
small entity commenters, but notes that the impact analyses in the 
proposal did account for feedback received through the SBREFA process 
and did provide a complete analysis of the differential costs to small 
entities. Based on its analysis and the feedback received during that 
process, the proposal reduced the number and complexity of required 
data fields in the proposal relative to the SBREFA Outline, and 
established longer compliance timelines for small entities. These 
provisions of the proposal were an acknowledgement of the reliance of 
small depository data providers on service providers to comply with the 
rule and the scale advantages of large data providers. Regarding 
increased competition from fintechs, the proposal acknowledged that 
there would likely be increased competition for covered accounts, due 
to easier account switching and enhanced services offered by third 
parties under the rule. The trend of greater competition from third 
parties is likely heightened under the rule, although it is present 
under the baseline as well; this trend also stands to benefit small 
data providers with competitive account offerings. The CFPB expects 
that many small entity data providers will adopt developer interfaces 
voluntarily due to competitive pressures, as they have done prior to 
the rule, but the change in coverage will allow small data providers to 
forgo or delay the deployment of a developer interface if it is 
especially costly for them based on the characteristics of their 
institution. Regarding the comment asserting there is a cumulative 
impact of different rulemakings on credit unions, small entities that 
are credit unions are not data providers under the final rule.
3. Response of the Agency to Any Comments Filed by the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in Response to the 
Proposed Rule, and a Detailed Statement of Any Change Made to the 
Proposed Rule in the Final Rule as a Result of the Comments
    The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Association 
(Advocacy) provided comments on several aspects of the proposal. 
Advocacy stated that the exemptions in the proposal were too narrow, 
and that the CFPB should consider exemptions for small third parties in 
addition to any exemptions for data providers. Advocacy commented that 
implementation timelines should be longer. Advocacy also commented that 
the CFPB did not discuss the possibility that firms may reduce their 
offerings to customers rather than comply, and that the CFPB should 
analyze the impact if small entities decide to exit rather than comply 
with the rule. Advocacy stated that the CFPB should consider State laws 
that have similar requirements, and evaluate if the rule is necessary 
or creates additional burden. Advocacy commented that the CFPB should 
clarify the role of industry standards and the responsibility or 
liability for data security issues or misuse of data. Advocacy 
commented that small entities should be permitted to charge fees for 
making covered data available, and that the CFPB should reduce the 
definition of covered data for transaction information to 12 months, 
rather than the ``safe harbor'' of 24 months in the proposal.
    In the final rule, the CFPB has revised the proposed coverage such 
that small entity depositories are not covered as data providers. With 
regards to small depository data providers, this change also addresses 
Advocacy's comments about the possibility that firms may reduce their 
service offerings or decide to exit the market in response to the rule.
    The CFPB considered exemptions for small nondepository data 
providers, but generally understands that these firms do not have the 
technological complexities that make complying with the data provider 
requirements as burdensome as for depositories. Rather than exempt some 
small nondepository data providers, the CFPB has instead extended the 
compliance deadlines for such entities from one year in the proposal to 
approximately 2.5 years in the final rule. The CFPB expects this change 
to substantially mitigate the burden of compliance for small 
nondepository data providers.
    The CFPB considered exemptions for small third parties in the 
proposal, but remains concerned that allowing third parties to access 
covered data via the rule without requiring the data security, data 
privacy, and secondary use restrictions in the rule would significantly 
reduce the benefits to consumers and would create risks for data 
providers--including small entity data providers. In addition, unlike 
covered data providers, small entities that are potential third parties 
have a

[[Page 90984]]

choice over whether to access covered data, and can choose not to 
access such data if they find that complying with the rule's 
authorization requirements and secondary use restrictions are too 
costly. As described in part VI.E, the CFPB expects that compliance 
costs for third parties will be less burdensome than costs for data 
providers and that benefits to third parties will outweigh the costs. 
As a result, the CFPB does not expect the rule's requirements on third 
parties to deter the development of beneficial third party products and 
services.
    Regarding the consideration of State laws that have similar 
requirements, the CFPB considered such laws, as described in part VI.D. 
These primarily include State-level data privacy and data security 
laws, which are closest in effect to some of the rule's requirements on 
third parties. The CFPB expects the rule's requirements on third 
parties to be complementary to these State laws, and necessary to 
impose on all third parties, regardless of where they operate or where 
their consumers are located, to limit data privacy and security risks 
to consumers. In addition, State laws generally do not require data 
providers to provide consumers with access to their financial data, 
which is the core objective of CFPA section 1033 and this rule.
    Regarding the clarity of industry standards, as discussed in part 
II.C, the CFPB published the Industry Standard-Setting Final Rule in 
June 2024 to try to provide clarity on industry standards sooner and to 
ease compliance burden for industry participants, including small 
entities.
    The potential costs related to liability or fraud for data 
providers are discussed in part VI.E.1. As discussed in that part, the 
CFPB expects that the majority of data providers will see a net 
decrease in fraud risks and reputational risks relative to the baseline 
of current market practices, in which screen scraping is widespread and 
there are no restrictions on data collection, retention, and use by 
third parties. Small depository entities are not covered as data 
providers under the final rule, and the CFPB generally expects that 
liability and fraud risks will be reduced for the majority of small 
nondepository data providers, based on the evidence discussed in part 
VI.E.1.
    Regarding permitting small data providers to charge fees for 
access, the CFPB has declined to permit such fees for the reasons 
discussed in parts IV.C.2 and VI.E.1. The CFPB has also declined to 
change the definition of covered data for transaction information held 
by small entity data providers, for the reasons discussed in part 
IV.B.3. The CFPB has instead addressed burden on small entities through 
revisions to coverage, compliance timelines, and other revisions 
relative to the proposal as discussed in this part.
4. Description of and an Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to 
Which the Rule Will Apply or an Explanation of Why No Such Estimate Is 
Available
    The small entities affected by the rule will be those that meet the 
definitions of data provider, third party, or data aggregator. Data 
providers include depository institutions and nondepository 
institutions, although, as discussed above, small depository 
institutions are not covered. The new financial data processing product 
or service definition will apply to third parties, data aggregators, or 
others that provide financial data processing products or services for 
consumer purposes.
    Nondepository financial institutions and entities outside of the 
financial industry may also be affected, though it is important to note 
that entities within these industries will only be subject to the rule 
if they meet the definitions of data provider, third party, or data 
aggregator. Examples of potentially affected small third parties 
include entities using consumer-authorized data to underwrite loans, 
offer budgeting or personal financial management services, or 
facilitate payments.
    For the purposes of assessing the impacts of the rule on small 
entities, ``small entities'' are defined in the RFA to include small 
businesses, small nonprofit organizations, and small government 
jurisdictions. A ``small business'' is defined by the SBA's Office of 
Size Standards for all industries in the NAICS. The CFPB has identified 
several categories of small entities that may be subject to the 
proposals under consideration. These include depository institutions 
(such as commercial banks, savings associations, and credit unions), 
credit card issuing nondepositories, sales financing companies, 
consumer lending companies, real estate credit companies, firms that 
engage in financial transactions processing, reserve, and clearinghouse 
activities, firms that engage in other activities related to credit 
intermediation, investment banking and securities dealing companies, 
securities brokerage companies, and commodities contracts brokerage 
companies. Other potentially affected small entities include software 
publishers, firms that provide data processing and hosting services, 
firms that provide payroll services, firms that provide custom computer 
programming services, and credit bureaus. According to the SBA's Office 
of Size Standards, depository institutions are small if they have less 
than $850 million in assets. Nondepository firms that may be subject to 
the rule have a maximum size of $47 million in receipts, but the 
threshold is lower for some NAICS categories.\222\ Table 1 shows the 
number of small businesses within NAICS categories that may be subject 
to the rule based on December 2023 NCUA and FFIEC Call Report data and 
2017 Economic Census data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Entity counts 
are not provided for the specific revenue amounts that the SBA uses to 
define small entities and are instead usually provided at multiples of 
five or ten million dollars. Table 1 includes the closest upper and 
lower estimates for each revenue limit (e.g., a NAICS category with a 
maximum size of $47 million in receipts has both the count of entities 
with less than $50 million in revenue and the count of entities with 
less than $40 million in revenue). Not all small entities within each 
included NAICS category will be subject to the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \222\ SBA regularly updates its size thresholds to account for 
inflation and other factors. The SBA Size Standards described here 
reflect the thresholds in effect at the publication date of this 
final rule. The 2017 Economic Census data are the most recently 
available data with entity counts by annual revenue. See Small Bus. 
Admin., SBA Size Standards (effective Mar. 17, 2023), https://www.sba.gov/sites/sbagov/files/2023-06/Table%20of%20Size%20Standards_Effective%20March%2017%2C%202023%20%282%29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P

[[Page 90985]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18NO24.000

    Table 2 provides the CFPB's estimate of the actual number of 
affected entities within the categories of depositories, nondepository 
data providers, and third parties, and the NAICS codes these entities 
may fall within. As described in

[[Page 90986]]

part VII.B.6, with regard to the requirements of the rule applicable to 
data providers, the final rule does not cover depositories that are 
small entities based on SBA's definition. As a result, there will be no 
small entity depositories covered by the rule, in their capacity as 
data providers. If any of these entities operate as third parties, they 
will be covered and counted as third parties. The CFPB is not able to 
estimate with precision the number of small nondepository entities that 
will be subject to the rule, but expects that approximately 100 small 
nondepository institutions will be data providers under the rule. In 
addition, based on data from the Provider Collection and Aggregator 
Collection, the CFPB estimates that between 6,800 and 9,500 small 
entities are third parties that access consumer-authorized data.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18NO24.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18NO24.002


[[Page 90987]]


BILLING CODE 4810-AM-C
5. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements of the Rule, Including an Estimate of the Classes of Small 
Entities Which Will Be Subject to the Requirement and the Type of 
Professional Skills Necessary for the Preparation of the Report or 
Record
    The rule will impose new reporting, recordkeeping, and other 
compliance requirements on small entities subject to the rule, which 
excludes small depository data providers. These requirements generally 
differ for small entities in two classes: nondepository data providers 
and third parties. Part VI.E provides a detailed description of the 
requirements and estimated compliance costs that will be faced by 
affected small entities under the rule. These requirements will be 
imposed on an estimated 100 small nondepository data providers and 
between 6,800 and 9,500 small third parties, as shown in table 2. The 
requirements and their costs are summarized in this section.
Requirements for Nondepository Data Providers
    The rule will require nondepository data providers to calculate and 
disclose the response rate for third party data access on a monthly 
basis. The CFPB estimates that data providers may face a $7,600 cost of 
developing and testing a system to regularly disclose this information 
on their websites. The CFPB expects these reports will generally be 
automated and will have minimal ongoing costs after the system is 
implemented.
    The rule will require nondepository data providers to have policies 
and procedures to retain records to demonstrate compliance with certain 
other requirements of the rule. Data providers will also be required to 
have policies and procedures designed to ensure that the reason for the 
decision to decline a third party's request to access its developer 
interface is communicated to the third party. The CFPB expects that 
these recordkeeping requirements will likely be built into a data 
provider's developer interface and the cost methodology described in 
part IV.E.1 includes these in the overall cost of establishing and 
maintaining a compliant developer interface. Incremental costs of these 
requirements are limited to developing and implementing reasonable 
policies and procedures, which the CFPB estimates will cost $23,500 to 
$51,200 per data provider.
    The rule requires nondepository data providers to maintain a 
consumer interface that allows consumers to directly access their data. 
As discussed in part VI.E.1, the CFPB expects that data providers 
subject to this requirement generally already provide the required 
information under the baseline and estimates that the incremental costs 
of this requirement will be minimal.
    The rule requires nondepository data providers to maintain a 
developer interface. As described in part VI.E.1, the CFPB expects that 
most nondepository data providers will develop and maintain their 
developer interfaces in-house. For small nondepository data providers 
that choose to build their developer interface in-house, the estimated 
upfront cost is $46,000. Estimated annual costs for in-house developer 
interfaces include technology costs of $20,000 as well as ongoing 
staffing costs of $48,000 to $95,000.
    The rule requires data providers to have policies and procedures to 
ensure that data are accurately transferred to third parties. In the 
cost methodology described in part IV.E.1, the CFPB includes these 
costs in the estimate for establishing and maintaining a compliant 
developer interface.
    Satisfying these requirements for data providers would generally 
involve professional skills related to software development, general 
and operational management, legal expertise, compliance, and customer 
support.
Requirements for Third Parties
    Third parties are not subject to reporting requirements but will be 
required to retain records of consumer data access requests and actions 
taken in response to these requests, reasons for not making the data 
available, and data access denials under the rule. The CFPB understands 
that most third parties maintain similar records and costs will be 
limited to a one-time change to existing systems and small storage 
costs. The CFPB estimates a one-time cost of $10,100 for third parties 
to develop and implement appropriate policies and procedures, with 
minimal ongoing costs.
    The rule requires third parties to establish and maintain systems 
that receive data access revocation requests, track duration-limited 
authorizations, delete data when required due to revoked or lapsed 
authorizations, and retain the relevant records. The CFPB estimates 
that the one-time cost to establish these systems will be between 
$22,800 and $94,900, with minimal ongoing costs.
    The rule requires third parties to provide authorization disclosure 
and certification statements. The CFPB estimates that the one-time cost 
to third parties of establishing an automated system to provide these 
disclosures would be $94,000. However, the CFPB expects that small 
third parties will generally use another third party to provide these 
disclosures and this cost will not be incurred. If third parties 
currently provide disclosures, modifying the content to comply with the 
proposed rule is estimated to cost between $2,900 and $3,800.
    Satisfying these requirements for data providers will generally 
involve professional skills related to software development, general 
and operational management, legal expertise, compliance, and customer 
support.
    As discussed in part VI.E.1, the CFPB does not expect the new 
financial data processing products or services definition to impose 
costs on small entities.
6. Description of Steps the Agency Has Taken To Minimize the 
Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities Consistent With the 
Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes, Including a Statement of the 
Factual, Policy, and Legal Reasons for Selecting the Alternative 
Adopted in the Final Rule and Why Each One of the Other Significant 
Alternatives to the Rule Considered by the Agency Which Affect the 
Impact on Small Entities Was Rejected
    In the proposal, the CFPB considered several alternatives to the 
proposal that would minimize economic impacts on small entities. These 
alternatives generally fell into four categories: (1) limiting coverage 
of small data providers, (2) permitting small data providers to charge 
fees for making covered data available, (3) exemptions from the 
proposed rule for small third parties, or (4) alternative compliance 
dates for small depository data providers.
    In the final rule, small depositories are not covered data 
providers. While the CFPB considered more limited alternatives for 
excluding depository data providers from coverage in the proposal, 
comments from the SBA Office of Advocacy and data provider commenters 
nearly universally favored coverage definitions that would reduce 
burden for a larger number of small depository data providers. The CFPB 
has revised the coverage of depository data providers in the final rule 
to reduce the burden on small depository data providers, thereby 
addressing these comments.
    The CFPB considered not covering small nondepository data 
providers.

[[Page 90988]]

However, as discussed in part VII.B.3, the CFPB has determined that 
compliance burdens are likely to be lower for these small entities as 
compared to small depositories, and that extended compliance timelines 
would better address burden on small nondepositories while still 
accomplishing the goals of the rulemaking.
    The CFPB also considered the alternative of permitting small data 
providers to charge fees for making covered data available through 
developer interfaces. Given the change in coverage in the final rule, 
this alternative would only affect small nondepository data providers. 
The CFPB has determined that a data provider charging such fees would 
be inconsistent with the data provider's statutory obligation under 
CFPA section 1033 to make covered data available to consumers and to 
their authorized third party representatives. Further, consumers at 
covered small data providers could be harmed through reduced access to 
third parties' products and services if the CFPB were to permit only 
small data providers to charge fees.
    The CFPB also considered exemptions as a means to reduce burden for 
small entity third parties. Based on data from the Aggregator 
Collection, the CFPB estimates that there are approximately 6,800 to 
9,500 third parties with fewer than 100,000 connected accounts, many of 
which may be small entities. However, exempting third parties from 
certain conditions of access under the rule, such as the requirements 
on collection, use, and retention, would likely create risks of harm 
for consumers on data security and privacy grounds, provide unfair 
competitive advantages for exempt versus non-exempt third parties, and 
increase the risks of losses from data security incidents for consumers 
and data providers.
    Finally, the CFPB considered alternative compliance dates for small 
entities to reduce burden. The proposed rule had a compliance date of 
approximately four years after the final rule is published in the 
Federal Register for depository data providers with less than $850 
million in assets. In the final rule, small depositories are not 
covered as data providers. For small nondepository data providers, the 
CFPB has extended the compliance date from approximately one year after 
the final rule is published in the Federal Register to approximately 
2.5 years after publication. The CFPB expects this will substantially 
reduce compliance burden on small nondepository data providers. 
Regarding potential burden for small third parties, the CFPB has also 
extended the earliest compliance dates that apply to the largest data 
providers from six months to approximately 1.5 years and published the 
Industry Standard-Setting Final Rule in June 2024 to encourage the 
establishment of consensus standards in the near future. The CFPB 
expects these changes to effectively increase the amount of time small 
third parties have to come into compliance with the rule, reducing 
their compliance burden.
7. Description of the Steps the Agency Has Taken To Minimize Any 
Additional Cost of Credit for Small Entities
    The CFPB expects that the rule may have some limited impact on the 
cost or availability of credit for small entities but does not expect 
that the impact will be substantial. The CFPB expects there are several 
ways the rule could potentially impact the cost or availability of 
credit to small entities. First, the provisions of the rule could 
impact the availability of credit to small entities if small businesses 
are using loans from lenders (either data providers or third parties) 
affected by the provisions and the provisions lead to a contraction of 
the offered services. Second, the rule could potentially increase the 
cost of credit for small businesses if the costs of implementing the 
rule are passed through in the form of higher prices on loans from 
lenders. Third, for small business owners that use consumer-authorized 
data to qualify for or access credit, the provisions could potentially 
increase credit availability or lower costs for small entities by 
facilitating increased data access.\223\ Small entity representatives 
did not provide feedback on this topic during the SBREFA process.\224\ 
The CFPB did not have data to quantify these potential impacts in the 
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \223\ As an example, Howell et al. found that more automated 
fintech lenders facilitated a higher share of Paycheck Protection 
Program loans to small, Black-owned firms relative to traditional 
lenders. Sabrina T. Howell et al., Lender Automation and Racial 
Disparities in Credit Access, 79 J. Fin. 1457-1512 (202), https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.13303.
    \224\ SBREFA Panel Report at 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFPB requested comment on its analysis of the proposal's impact 
on the cost of credit for small entities, and requested data or 
evidence on these potential impacts. One consumer advocate commenter 
stated that open banking and access to online providers give small 
businesses access to new services, but cited a study finding that 
surveyed small businesses had lower satisfaction with online lenders 
than with small banks.\225\ The CFPB expects that the rule will 
generally improve small businesses' ability to use online financial 
services, increasing their options for credit. The CFPB also expects 
that the final rule's coverage and extended implementation periods will 
reduce compliance burden on small depositories relative to the 
proposal, mitigating negative effects on credit access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \225\ Fed. Rsrv. Banks, 2023 Report on Employer Firms: Findings 
from the 2022 Small Business Credit Survey (Mar. 2023), https://doi.org/10.55350/sbcs-20230308.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),\226\ Federal 
agencies are generally required to seek, prior to implementation, 
approval from OMB for information collection requirements. Under the 
PRA, the CFPB may not conduct or sponsor, and, notwithstanding any 
other provision of law, a person is not required to respond to, an 
information collection unless the information collection displays a 
valid control number assigned by OMB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \226\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burden, the CFPB conducted a preclearance consultation program to 
provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to 
comment on the information collection requirements in accordance with 
the PRA. This helps ensure that the public understands the CFPB's 
requirements or instructions, respondents can provide the requested 
data in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial 
resources) is minimized, information collection instruments are clearly 
understood, and the CFPB can properly assess the impact of information 
collection requirements on respondents.
    The rule amends and adds to 12 CFR part 1033 and amends 12 CFR part 
1001. The rule contains seven new information collection requirements.
    1. Obligation to make covered data available (Sec.  1033.201), 
including general requirements (Sec.  1033.301) and requirements 
applicable to developer interface (Sec.  1033.311).
    2. Information about the data provider (Sec.  1033.341).
    3. Policies and procedures for data providers (Sec.  1033.351).
    4. Third party authorization; general (Sec.  1033.401), including 
the authorization disclosure (Sec.  1033.411).
    5. Third party obligations (Sec.  1033.421).
    6. Use of data aggregator (Sec.  1033.431).
    7. Policies and procedures for third party record retention (Sec.  
1033.441).
    The information collection requirements in this final rule are 
mandatory.

[[Page 90989]]

    The collections of information contained in this rule, and 
identified as such, have been submitted to OMB for review under section 
3507(d) of the PRA. A complete description of the information 
collection requirements (including the burden estimate methods) is 
provided in the information collection request (ICR) that the CFPB has 
submitted to OMB under the requirements of the PRA. The ICR submitted 
to OMB requesting approval under the PRA for the information collection 
requirements contained herein is available at www.regulations.gov as 
well as on OMB's public-facing docket at www.reginfo.gov.
    Title of Collection: 12 CFR part 1033.
    OMB Control Number: 3170-XXXX.
    Type of Review: New collection.
    Affected Public: Private sector.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 10,285.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,435,650 annually and 
5,664,085 one-time.
    The CFPB will publish a separate Federal Register notice once OMB 
concludes its review announcing OMB approval of the information 
collections contained in this final rule.
    In the proposal, the CFPB invited comments on: (1) Whether the 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the CFPB, including whether the information will have 
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the CFPB's estimate of the 
burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methods and the assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, 
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways 
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, 
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other 
forms of information technology.
    An industry association representing nondepositories commented that 
the PRA analysis in the proposal underestimated the burden of the 
information collection, particularly the costs estimated for policies 
and procedures for data providers and third party record retention, and 
the costs for data providers' obligations to make data available to 
third parties. The commenter stated that the cost and burden of the 
information collection would exceed the CFPB's estimate of 120 hours 
annually per entity and would be prohibitively expensive for smaller 
entities, and encouraged the CFPB to reconsider its estimate of the 
burden from the information collection.
    As discussed in part VI.E.1, the CFPB has increased its estimates 
for the costs of developing policies and procedures for data providers; 
these costs are estimated to be between $23,500 and $51,200 per data 
provider. Regarding the estimated annual burden per entity of the 
information collection, the CFPB expects that most burdens related to 
record retention and making data available will be one-time costs to 
develop and implement compliant systems. This is reflected in the 
CFPB's estimate of larger one-time costs from the information 
collection as compared to annual costs. Comments related to the one-
time and annual costs of record retention, making data available, and 
policies and procedures are discussed in part VI.E.1. The CFPB did not 
receive data or evidence that would allow it to further refine its 
estimates of per entity annual costs, but notes that the overall costs 
of the information collection have been reduced due to changes in the 
coverage of the final rule.
    The other comments on the rule generally are summarized above.

IX. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 
the CFPB will submit a report containing this rule and other required 
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and 
the Comptroller General of the United States at least 60 days prior to 
the rule's published effective date. The Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs has designated this rule as a ``major rule'' as 
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

X. Severability

    The CFPB intends that, if any provision of the final rule, or any 
application of a provision, is stayed or determined to be invalid, the 
remaining provisions or applications are severable and shall continue 
in effect.\227\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \227\ As non-exhaustive examples to illustrate the above, the 
following are severable from the remainder of the rule: the 
applicability of the rule to any type of data provider; the 
applicability of the rule to any type of covered consumer financial 
product or service; the applicability of the rule to any type of 
covered data; the reference in any provision of the rule to 
consensus standards; the fee prohibition in Sec.  1033.301(c); any 
of the requirements for a developer interface under Sec.  1033.311; 
and the applicability of Sec.  1001.2(b) to any activity. Moreover, 
part 1033 and Sec.  1001.2(b) are each severable from the other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, this is subject to the following significant exception. 
The CFPB considers data providers' obligations to provide data under 12 
CFR part 1033 to authorized third parties to be inseparable from the 
protections the CFPB is establishing in subpart D to ensure that 
authorized third parties are acting on behalf of consumers. 
Accordingly, if any of the provisions in subpart D were stayed or 
determined to be invalid, the CFPB intends that subpart D, together 
with references to third parties and authorized third parties elsewhere 
in part 1033, shall not continue in effect. This would not affect 
direct access by consumers to covered data under the remainder of part 
1033, and it would also not affect the definition of financial product 
or service under Sec.  1001.2(b).
    The CFPB did not receive any comments opposing its approach to 
severability.\228\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \228\ The CFPB notes that this severability clause is not 
codified but forms an operative part of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects

12 CFR Part 1001

    Consumer protection, Credit.

12 CFR Part 1033

    Banks, banking, Consumer protection, Credit, Credit Unions, 
Electronic funds transfers, National banks, Privacy, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Voluntary standards.

Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the CFPB amends 12 CFR 
parts 1001 and 1033 as set forth below:

PART 1001--FINANCIAL PRODUCTS OR SERVICES

0
1. The authority citation for Part 1001 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 12 U.S.C. 5481(15)(A)(XI); AND 12 U.S.C. 5512(B)(1).

0
2. Amend Sec.  1001.2 by adding paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1001.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) Providing financial data processing products or services by any 
technological means, including processing, storing, aggregating, or 
transmitting financial or banking data, alone or in connection with 
another product or service, where the financial data processing is not 
offered or provided by a person who, by operation of 12 U.S.C. 
5481(15)(A)(vii)(I) or (II), is not a covered person.
    (c) [Reserved]

0
3. Revise part 1033 to read as follows:

PART 1033--PERSONAL FINANCIAL DATA RIGHTS

Subpart A--General
Sec.

[[Page 90990]]

1033.101 Authority, purpose, and organization.
1033.111 Coverage of data providers.
1033.121 Compliance dates.
1033.131 Definitions.
1033.141 Standard-setting bodies.
Subpart B--Making Covered Data Available
1033.201 Availability and prohibition against evasion.
1033.211 Covered data.
1033.221 Exceptions.
Subpart C--Data Provider Interfaces; Responding to Requests
1033.301 General requirements.
1033.311 Requirements applicable to developer interface.
1033.321 Interface access.
1033.331 Responding to requests for information.
1033.341 Information about the data provider.
1033.351 Policies and procedures.
Subpart D--Authorized Third Parties
1033.401 Third party authorization; General.
1033.411 Authorization disclosure.
1033.421 Third party obligations.
1033.431 Use of data aggregator.
1033.441 Policies and procedures for third party record retention.

Appendix A to Part 1033--Personal Financial Data Rights Rule: How To 
Apply for Recognition as a Standard Setter

    Authority:  12 U.S.C. 5512; 12 U.S.C. 5514; 12 U.S.C. 5533.

Subpart A--General


Sec.  1033.101  Authority, purpose, and organization.

    (a) Authority. The regulation in this part is issued by the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) pursuant to the Consumer 
Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA), Pub. L. 111-203, tit. X, 124 
Stat. 1955.
    (b) Purpose. This part implements the provisions of section 1033 of 
the CFPA by requiring data providers to make available to consumers and 
authorized third parties, upon request, covered data in the data 
provider's control or possession concerning a covered consumer 
financial product or service, in an electronic form usable by consumers 
and authorized third parties; and by prescribing standards to promote 
the development and use of standardized formats for covered data, 
including through industry standards developed by standard-setting 
bodies recognized by the CFPB. This part also sets forth obligations of 
third parties that would access covered data on a consumer's behalf, 
including limitations on their collection, use, and retention of 
covered data.
    (c) Organization. This part is divided into subparts as follows:
    (1) Subpart A establishes the authority, purpose, organization, 
coverage of data providers, compliance dates, and definitions 
applicable to this part.
    (2) Subpart B provides the general obligation of data providers to 
make covered data available upon the request of a consumer or 
authorized third party, including what types of information must be 
made available.
    (3) Subpart C provides the requirements for data providers to 
establish and maintain interfaces to receive and respond to requests 
for covered data.
    (4) Subpart D provides the obligations of third parties that would 
access covered data on behalf of a consumer.
    (5) Appendix A to this part provides instructions for how a 
standard-setting body would apply for CFPB recognition.


Sec.  1033.111  Coverage of data providers.

    (a) Coverage of data providers. A data provider has obligations 
under this part if it controls or possesses covered data concerning a 
covered consumer financial product or service that the consumer 
obtained from the data provider, subject to the exclusion in paragraph 
(d) of this section.
    (b) Definition of covered consumer financial product or service. 
Covered consumer financial product or service means a consumer 
financial product or service, as defined in 12 U.S.C. 5481(5), that is:
    (1) A Regulation E account, which means an account, as defined in 
Regulation E, 12 CFR 1005.2(b);
    (2) A Regulation Z credit card, which means a credit card, as 
defined in Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.2(a)(15)(i); or
    (3) Facilitation of payments from a Regulation E account or 
Regulation Z credit card, excluding products or services that merely 
facilitate first party payments. For purposes of this part, a first 
party payment is a transfer initiated by the payee or an agent acting 
on behalf of the underlying payee. First party payments include 
payments initiated by loan servicers.
    (c) Definition of data provider. Data provider means a covered 
person, as defined in 12 U.S.C. 5481(6), that is:
    (1) A financial institution, as defined in Regulation E, 12 CFR 
1005.2(i);
    (2) A card issuer, as defined in Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.2(a)(7); 
or
    (3) Any other person that controls or possesses information 
concerning a covered consumer financial product or service that the 
consumer obtained from that person.
    Example 1 to paragraph (c): A digital wallet provider is a data 
provider.
    (d) Coverage threshold--Certain depository institutions. The 
requirements of subparts B and C of this part do not apply to data 
providers defined under paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section 
that are depository institutions that hold total assets equal to or 
less than the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standard, as 
determined in accordance with this paragraph (d). If at any point a 
depository institution that held total assets greater than that SBA 
size standard as of or at any point after January 17, 2025 subsequently 
holds total assets below that amount, the requirements of subparts B 
and C of this part continue to apply.
    (1) Determining SBA size standard. For purposes of paragraph (d) of 
this section, the SBA size standard is the SBA size standard for the 
data provider's appropriate North American Industry Classification 
System (NAICS) code for commercial banking, credit unions, savings 
institutions and other depository credit intermediation, or credit card 
issuing, as codified in 13 CFR 121.201.
    (2) Calculating total assets. For purposes of paragraph (d) of this 
section, total assets held by a depository institution are determined 
by averaging the assets reported on its own four preceding quarterly 
call report submissions to the Federal Financial Institutions 
Examination Council or National Credit Union Association, as 
applicable, or its submissions to the appropriate oversight body to the 
extent it does not submit such reports to the Federal Financial 
Examination Council or National Credit Union Administration.
    (3) Merger or acquisition--coverage of surviving depository 
institution when there are not four quarterly call report submissions. 
After a merger or acquisition the surviving depository institution 
shall determine quarterly assets prior to the merger or acquisition by 
using the combined assets reported on the quarterly call report 
submissions by all predecessor depository institutions. The surviving 
depository institution shall determine quarterly assets after the 
merger or acquisition by using the assets reported on the quarterly 
call report submissions by the surviving depository institution. The 
surviving depository institution shall determine total assets by using 
the average of the quarterly assets for the four preceding quarters, 
whether the quarterly assets are the combined assets of the predecessor 
depository institutions or from the surviving depository institution.

[[Page 90991]]

Sec.  1033.121  Compliance dates.

    (a) Determining assets and revenue for purposes of initial 
compliance dates. A data provider's compliance date in paragraph (b) of 
this section is based on the calculation of total assets or total 
receipts, as appropriate, described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of 
this section.
    (1) With respect to a depository institution data provider, total 
assets are determined by averaging the assets reported on its 2023 
third quarter, 2023 fourth quarter, 2024 first quarter, and 2024 second 
quarter call report submissions to the Federal Financial Institutions 
Examination Council or National Credit Union Administration, as 
applicable, or its submissions to the appropriate oversight body to the 
extent it does not submit such reports to the Federal Financial 
Examination Council or National Credit Union Administration. If, as a 
result of a merger or acquisition, a depository institution data 
provider does not have the named four quarterly call report 
submissions, the depository institution data provider shall use the 
process set out in Sec.  1033.111(d)(3) to determine total assets for 
the time period named in this paragraph (a)(1).
    (2) With respect to a nondepository institution data provider, 
total receipts are calculated based on the SBA definition of receipts, 
as codified in 13 CFR 121.104(a).
    (b) Initial compliance dates. A data provider defined under Sec.  
1033.111(c)(1) through (3) must comply with the requirements in 
subparts B and C of this part beginning on:
    (1) April 1, 2026, for depository institution data providers that 
hold at least $250 billion in total assets and nondepository 
institution data providers that generated at least $10 billion in total 
receipts in either calendar year 2023 or calendar year 2024.
    (2) April 1, 2027, for data providers that are:
    (i) Depository institutions that hold at least $10 billion in total 
assets but less than $250 billion in total assets; or
    (ii) Nondepository institutions that did not generate $10 billion 
or more in total receipts in both calendar year 2023 and calendar year 
2024.
    (3) April 1, 2028, for depository institution data providers that 
hold at least $3 billion in total assets but less than $10 billion in 
total assets.
    (4) April 1, 2029, for depository institution data providers that 
hold at least $1.5 billion in total assets but less than $3 billion in 
total assets.
    (5) April 1, 2030, for depository institution data providers that 
hold less than $1.5 billion in total assets but more than $850 million 
in total assets.
    (c) Compliance dates for depository institution data providers that 
subsequently cross coverage threshold. A depository institution data 
provider under Sec.  1033.111(c)(1) through (3) that has total assets 
as calculated in Sec.  1033.111(d)(2) equal to or less than the SBA 
size standard as determined in accordance with Sec.  1033.111(d)(1), 
but that subsequently holds total assets that exceed that SBA size 
standard, as measured in Sec.  1033.111(d)(2), must comply with the 
requirements in subparts B and C of this part within a reasonable 
amount of time after exceeding the size standard, not to exceed five 
years.


Sec.  1033.131  Definitions.

    For purposes of this part, the following definitions apply:
    Authorized third party means a third party that has complied with 
the authorization procedures described in Sec.  1033.401.
    Card issuer is defined at Sec.  1033.111(c)(2).
    Consensus standard means a standard that is adopted by a recognized 
standard setter and that continues to be maintained by that recognized 
standard setter.
    Consumer means a natural person. Trusts established for tax or 
estate planning purposes are considered natural persons for purposes of 
this definition. Consumer also includes guardians, trustees, 
custodians, or other similar natural persons acting on behalf of a 
consumer pursuant to State law.
    Consumer interface means an interface through which a data provider 
receives requests for covered data and makes available covered data in 
an electronic form usable by consumers in response to the requests.
    Covered consumer financial product or service is defined at Sec.  
1033.111(b).
    Covered data is defined at Sec.  1033.211.
    Data aggregator means a person that is retained by and provides 
services to the authorized third party to enable access to covered 
data.
    Data provider is defined at Sec.  1033.111(c).
    Depository institution means any depository institution as defined 
by the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 1813(c)(1), or any 
credit union as defined by 12 CFR 700.2.
    Developer interface means an interface through which a data 
provider receives requests for covered data and makes available covered 
data in an electronic form usable by authorized third parties in 
response to the requests.
    Financial institution is defined at Sec.  1033.111(c)(1).
    Recognized standard setter means a standard-setting body that has 
been recognized by the CFPB under Sec.  1033.141.
    Regulation E account is defined at Sec.  1033.111(b)(1).
    Regulation Z credit card is defined at Sec.  1033.111(b)(2).
    Third party means any person that is not the consumer about whom 
the covered data pertains or the data provider that controls or 
possesses the consumer's covered data.


Sec.  1033.141  Standard-setting bodies.

    (a) Recognition of a standard-setting body. A standard-setting body 
may request CFPB recognition. Recognition will last up to five years, 
absent revocation. The CFPB will not recognize a standard-setting body 
unless it demonstrates that it satisfies the following attributes:
    (1) Openness. The sources, procedures, and processes used are open 
to all interested parties, including: consumer and other public 
interest groups with expertise in consumer protection, financial 
services, community development, fair lending, and civil rights; 
authorized third parties; data providers; data recipients; data 
aggregators and other providers of services to authorized third 
parties; and relevant trade associations. Parties can meaningfully 
participate in standards development on a non-discriminatory basis.
    (2) Balance. The decision-making power is balanced across all 
interested parties, including consumer and other public interest 
groups, and is reflected at all levels of the standard-setting body. 
There is meaningful representation for large and small commercial 
entities within these categories. No single interest or set of 
interests dominates decision-making. Achieving balance requires 
recognition that, even when a participant may play multiple roles, such 
as data provider and authorized third party, the weight of that 
participant's commercial concerns may align primarily with one set of 
interests. The ownership of participants is considered in achieving 
balance.
    (3) Due process and appeals. The standard-setting body uses 
documented and publicly available policies and procedures, and it 
provides adequate notice of meetings and standards development, 
sufficient time to review drafts and prepare views and objections, 
access to views and objections of other participants, and a fair and 
impartial process for resolving conflicting views. An appeals process 
is available for the impartial handling of procedural appeals.
    (4) Consensus. Standards development proceeds by consensus,

[[Page 90992]]

which is defined as general agreement, though not necessarily 
unanimity. During the development of consensus, comments and objections 
are considered using fair, impartial, open, and transparent processes.
    (5) Transparency. Procedures or processes for participating in 
standards development and for developing standards are transparent to 
participants and publicly available.

Subpart B--Making Covered Data Available


Sec.  1033.201  Availability and prohibition against evasion.

    (a) Obligation to make covered data available--(1) General. A data 
provider must make available to a consumer and an authorized third 
party, upon request, covered data in the data provider's control or 
possession concerning a covered consumer financial product or service 
that the consumer obtained from the data provider, in an electronic 
form usable by consumers and authorized third parties.
    (2) Prohibition against evasion. A data provider must not take any 
action:
    (i) With the intent of evading the requirements of subparts B and C 
of this part;
    (ii) That the data provider knows or should know is likely to 
render unusable the covered data that the data provider makes 
available; or
    (iii) That the data provider knows or should know is likely to 
prevent, interfere with, or materially discourage a consumer or 
authorized third party from accessing covered data consistent with this 
part.
    (b) Current data. In complying with paragraph (a) of this section, 
a data provider must make available the most recently updated covered 
data that it has in its control or possession at the time of a request. 
A data provider must make available information concerning authorized 
but not yet settled transactions.


Sec.  1033.211  Covered data.

    Covered data in this part means, as applicable:
    (a) Transaction information, including historical transaction 
information in the control or possession of the data provider. A data 
provider is deemed to make available sufficient historical transaction 
information for purposes of Sec.  1033.201(a)(1) if it makes available 
at least 24 months of such information.
    Example 1 to paragraph (a): This category includes amount, 
transaction date, payment type, pending or authorized status, payee or 
merchant name, rewards credits, and fees or finance charges.
    (b) Account balance information.
    (c) Information to initiate payment to or from a Regulation E 
account directly or indirectly held by the data provider. This category 
includes an account and routing number that can be used to initiate an 
Automated Clearing House transaction.
    (1) In complying with its obligation under Sec.  1033.201(a)(1), a 
data provider is permitted to make available a tokenized account number 
instead of, or in addition to, a non-tokenized account number, as long 
as the tokenization is not used as a pretext to restrict competitive 
use of payment initiation information.
    (2) This paragraph (c) does not apply to data providers who do not 
directly or indirectly hold the underlying Regulation E account. For 
example, a data provider that merely facilitates pass-through payments 
would not be required to make available account and routing number for 
the underlying Regulation E account.
    (d) Terms and conditions. For purposes of this section, terms and 
conditions are limited to data in agreements evidencing the terms of 
the legal obligation between a data provider and a consumer for a 
covered consumer financial product or service, such data in the account 
opening agreement and any amendments or additions to that agreement, 
including pricing information.
    Example 2 to paragraph (d): This category includes the applicable 
fee schedule, any annual percentage rate or annual percentage yield, 
credit limit, rewards program terms, whether a consumer has opted into 
overdraft coverage, and whether a consumer has entered into an 
arbitration agreement.
    (e) Upcoming bill information.
    Example 3 to paragraph (e): This category includes information 
about third party bill payments scheduled through the data provider and 
any upcoming payments due from the consumer to the data provider.
    (f) Basic account verification information, which is limited to the 
name, address, email address, and phone number associated with the 
covered consumer financial product or service. If a data provider 
directly or indirectly holds a Regulation E or Regulation Z account 
belonging to the consumer, the data provider must also make available a 
truncated account number or other identifier for that account.


Sec.  1033.221  Exceptions.

    A data provider is not required to make available the following 
covered data to a consumer or authorized third party:
    (a) Any confidential commercial information, including an algorithm 
used to derive credit scores or other risk scores or predictors. 
Information does not qualify for this exception merely because it is an 
input to, or an output of, an algorithm, risk score, or predictor. For 
example, annual percentage rate and other pricing terms are sometimes 
determined by an internal algorithm or predictor but do not fall within 
this exception.
    (b) Any information collected by the data provider for the sole 
purpose of preventing fraud or money laundering, or detecting, or 
making any report regarding other unlawful or potentially unlawful 
conduct. Information collected for other purposes does not fall within 
this exception. For example, name and other basic account verification 
information do not fall within this exception.
    (c) Any information required to be kept confidential by any other 
provision of law. Information does not qualify for this exception 
merely because the data provider must protect it for the consumer. For 
example, the data provider cannot restrict access to the consumer's own 
information merely because that information is subject to privacy 
protections.
    (d) Any information that the data provider cannot retrieve in the 
ordinary course of its business with respect to that information.

Subpart C--Data Provider Interfaces; Responding to Requests


Sec.  1033.301  General requirements.

    (a) Requirement to maintain interfaces. A data provider subject to 
the requirements of this part must maintain a consumer interface and a 
developer interface. The consumer interface and the developer interface 
must satisfy the requirements set forth in this section. The developer 
interface must satisfy the additional requirements set forth in Sec.  
1033.311.
    (b) Machine-readable files upon request. Upon request for covered 
data in a machine-readable file, and subject to paragraphs (b)(1) and 
(2) of this section, a data provider must make available to a consumer 
or an authorized third party covered data in a file that is machine-
readable and that the consumer or authorized third party can retain and 
transfer for processing into a separate information system that is 
reasonably available to and in the control of the consumer or 
authorized third party.

[[Page 90993]]

    (1) Consumer interface. With respect to covered data provided 
through its consumer interface, a data provider is not required to 
comply with:
    (i) The requirements of this paragraph (b) for the covered data 
described in Sec.  1033.211(c) (payment initiation information) and (f) 
(account verification information); and
    (ii) The requirement of this paragraph (b) to provide in a file 
that is machine-readable the covered data described in Sec.  
1033.211(d) (terms and conditions).
    (2) Developer interface. With respect to covered data provided 
through its developer interface, a data provider satisfies the 
requirements of this paragraph (b) if it makes available covered data 
in a form that satisfies the requirements of Sec.  1033.311(b).
    (c) Fees prohibited. A data provider must not impose any fees or 
charges on a consumer or an authorized third party in connection with:
    (1) Interfaces. Establishing or maintaining the interfaces required 
by paragraph (a) of this section; or
    (2) Requests. Receiving requests or making available covered data 
in response to requests as required by this part.


Sec.  1033.311  Requirements applicable to developer interface.

    (a) General. A developer interface required by Sec.  1033.301(a) 
must satisfy the requirements set forth in this section.
    (b) Standardized format. The developer interface must make 
available covered data in a standardized and machine-readable format. 
Indicia that the format satisfies this requirement include that it 
conforms to a consensus standard.
    (1) Meaning of format. For purposes of this section, format 
includes structures and definitions of covered data and requirements 
and protocols for communicating requests and responses for covered 
data.
    (2) Meaning of standardized. For purposes of this section, 
standardized means conforms to a format widely used by other data 
providers and designed to be readily usable by authorized third 
parties.
    (c) Commercially reasonable performance. A developer interface's 
performance must be commercially reasonable.
    (1) Response rate; quantitative minimum performance specification. 
The performance of the interface cannot be commercially reasonable if 
it does not meet the following quantitative minimum performance 
specification regarding its response rate: The number of proper 
responses by the interface divided by the total number of requests for 
covered data to the interface must be equal to or greater than 99.5 
percent in each calendar month. For purposes of this paragraph (c)(1), 
all of the following requirements apply:
    (i) Any responses by and requests to the interface during scheduled 
downtime for the interface must be excluded respectively from the 
numerator and the denominator of the calculation.
    (ii) In order for any downtime of the interface to qualify as 
scheduled downtime, the data provider must have provided reasonable 
notice of the downtime to all third parties to which the data provider 
has granted access to the interface. Indicia that the data provider's 
notice of the downtime may be reasonable include that the notice 
conforms to a consensus standard.
    (iii) The total amount of scheduled downtime for the interface in a 
calendar month must be reasonable. Indicia that the total amount of 
scheduled downtime may be reasonable include that the amount conforms 
to a consensus standard.
    (iv) A proper response is a response, other than any message 
provided during unscheduled downtime of the interface, that meets all 
of the following criteria:
    (A) The response either fulfills the request or explains why the 
request was not fulfilled;
    (B) The response is consistent with the reasonable written policies 
and procedures that the data provider establishes and maintains 
pursuant to Sec.  1033.351(a); and
    (C) The response is provided by the interface within a commercially 
reasonable amount of time. Indicia that a response is provided in a 
commercially reasonable amount of time include conformance to an 
applicable consensus standard.
    (2) Indicia of compliance--(i) Indicia. Indicia that a developer 
interface's performance is commercially reasonable as required by 
paragraph (c) of this section include:
    (A) Whether the interface's performance conforms to a consensus 
standard that is applicable to the data provider;
    (B) How the interface's performance compares to the performance 
levels achieved by the developer interfaces of similarly situated data 
providers; and
    (C) How the interface's performance compares to the performance 
levels achieved by the data provider's consumer interface.
    (ii) Performance specifications. For each of the three indicia set 
forth in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, relevant performance 
specifications include:
    (A) The interface's response rate as defined in paragraphs (c)(1) 
through (iv) of this section;
    (B) The interface's total amount of scheduled downtime;
    (C) The amount of time in advance of any scheduled downtime by 
which notice of the downtime is provided;
    (D) The interface's total amount of unscheduled downtime; and
    (E) The interface's response time.
    (d) Access caps. Except as otherwise permitted by Sec. Sec.  
1033.221, 1033.321, and 1033.331(b) and (c), a data provider must not 
unreasonably restrict the frequency with which it receives or responds 
to requests for covered data from an authorized third party through its 
developer interface. Any frequency restrictions must be applied in a 
manner that is non-discriminatory and consistent with the reasonable 
written policies and procedures that the data provider establishes and 
maintains pursuant to Sec.  1033.351(a). Indicia that any frequency 
restrictions applied are reasonable include that they conform to a 
consensus standard.
    (e) Security specifications--(1) Access credentials. A data 
provider must not allow a third party to access the data provider's 
developer interface by using any credentials that a consumer uses to 
access the consumer interface. A contract between a data provider and 
the data provider's service provider, pursuant to which the service 
provider establishes or maintains the data provider's developer 
interface, does not violate this paragraph (e)(1) if the contract 
provides that the service provider will make covered data available, in 
a form and manner that satisfies the requirements of this part, to 
authorized third parties through the developer interface by means of 
the service provider using a consumer's credentials to access the data 
from the data provider's consumer interface.
    (2) Security program. (i) A data provider must apply to the 
developer interface an information security program that satisfies the 
applicable rules issued pursuant to section 501 of the Gramm-Leach-
Bliley Act, 15 U.S.C. 6801; or
    (ii) If the data provider is not subject to section 501 of the 
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the data provider must apply to its developer 
interface the information security program required by the Federal 
Trade Commission's Standards for Safeguarding Customer Information, 16 
CFR part 314.

[[Page 90994]]

Sec.  1033.321  Interface access.

    (a) Denials related to risk management. A data provider does not 
violate the general obligation in Sec.  1033.201(a)(1) by denying a 
consumer or third party access to all elements of the interface 
described in Sec.  1033.301(a) if:
    (1) Granting access would be inconsistent with policies and 
procedures reasonably designed to comply with:
    (i) Safety and soundness standards of a prudential regulator, as 
defined at 12 U.S.C. 5481(24), of the data provider;
    (ii) Information security standards required by section 501 of the 
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, 15 U.S.C. 6801; or
    (iii) Other applicable laws and regulations regarding risk 
management; and
    (2) The denial is reasonable pursuant to paragraph (b) of this 
section.
    (b) Requirements for reasonable denials. A denial is reasonable 
pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section if it is:
    (1) Directly related to a specific risk of which the data provider 
is aware, such as a failure of a third party to maintain adequate data 
security; and
    (2) Applied in a consistent and non-discriminatory manner.
    (c) Indicia bearing on reasonable denials. Indicia bearing on the 
reasonableness of a denial pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section 
include:
    (1) Whether the denial adheres to a consensus standard related to 
risk management;
    (2) Whether the denial proceeds from standardized risk management 
criteria that are available to the third party upon request; and
    (3) Whether the third party has a certification or other 
identification of fitness to access covered data that is issued or 
recognized by a recognized standard setter or the CFPB.
    (d) Conditions sufficient to justify a denial. Each of the 
following is a sufficient basis for denying access to a third party:
    (1) The third party does not present any evidence that its 
information security practices are adequate to safeguard the covered 
data; or
    (2) The third party does not make the following information 
available in both human-readable and machine-readable formats, and 
readily identifiable to members of the public, meaning the information 
must be at least as available as it would be on a public website:
    (i) Its legal name and, if applicable, any assumed name it is using 
while doing business with the consumer;
    (ii) A link to its website;
    (iii) Its Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) that is issued by:
    (A) A utility endorsed by the LEI Regulatory Oversight Committee, 
or
    (B) A utility endorsed or otherwise governed by the Global LEI 
Foundation (or any successor thereof) after the Global LEI Foundation 
assumes operational governance of the global LEI system; and
    (iv) Contact information a data provider can use to inquire about 
the third party's information security and compliance practices.


Sec.  1033.331  Responding to requests for information.

    (a) Responding to requests--access by consumers. To comply with the 
requirements in Sec.  1033.201(a)(1), upon request from a consumer, a 
data provider must make available covered data when it receives 
information sufficient to:
    (1) Authenticate the consumer's identity; and
    (2) Identify the scope of the data requested.
    (b) Responding to requests--access by third parties. (1) To comply 
with the requirements in Sec.  1033.201(a)(1), upon request from an 
authorized third party, a data provider must make available covered 
data when it receives information sufficient to:
    (i) Authenticate the consumer's identity;
    (ii) Authenticate the third party's identity;
    (iii) Document the third party has followed the authorization 
procedures in Sec.  1033.401; and
    (iv) Identify the scope of the data requested.
    (2) The data provider is permitted to confirm the scope of a third 
party's authorization to access the consumer's data by asking the 
consumer to confirm:
    (i) The account(s) to which the third party is seeking access; and
    (ii) The categories of covered data the third party is requesting 
to access, as disclosed by the third party pursuant to Sec.  
1033.411(b)(4).
    Example 1 to paragraph (b): An authorized third party that a data 
provider has authenticated requests covered data on behalf of an 
authenticated consumer through the data provider's developer interface. 
The data provider asks the consumer to confirm the scope of the third 
party's authorization using a means of communication that the consumer 
is not accustomed to using with the data provider and that the data 
provider knows or should know will take a long period of time to reach 
the consumer and allow the consumer to respond with the confirmation. 
As a result of the long wait time, the consumer cannot provide a timely 
confirmation, delaying the third party's access to the covered data. 
This data provider has violated the Sec.  1033.201(a)(2) prohibition 
against evasion by taking an action that the data provider knows or 
should know is likely to interfere with an authorized third party's 
access to covered data.
    (c) Covered data not required to be made available. A data provider 
is not required to make covered data available in response to a request 
when:
    (1) The data are withheld because an exception described in Sec.  
1033.221 applies;
    (2) The data are not in the data provider's control or possession, 
consistent with the requirement in Sec.  1033.201(a)(1).
    (3) The data provider's interface is not available when the data 
provider receives a request requiring a response under this section. 
However, the data provider is subject to the performance specifications 
in Sec.  1033.311(c);
    (4) The request is for access by a third party; and
    (i) The consumer has revoked the third party's authorization 
pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section;
    (ii) The data provider has received notice that the consumer has 
revoked the third party's authorization pursuant to Sec.  
1033.421(h)(2); or
    (iii) The consumer has not provided a new authorization to the 
third party after the maximum duration period, as described in Sec.  
1033.421(b)(2).
    (5) The data provider has not received information sufficient to 
satisfy the conditions in paragraph(a) or (b) of this section.
    (d) Jointly held accounts. A data provider that receives a request 
for covered data from a consumer that jointly holds an account or from 
an authorized third party acting on behalf of such a consumer must make 
available covered data to that consumer or authorized third party, 
subject to the other provisions of this section.
    (e) Method to revoke third party authorization to access covered 
data. A data provider does not violate the general obligation in Sec.  
1033.201(a)(1) by making available to the consumer a reasonable method 
to revoke any third party's authorization to access all of the 
consumer's covered data, provided that such method does not violate 
Sec.  1033.201(a)(2). Indicia that the data provider's revocation 
method is reasonable include its conformance to a consensus standard. A 
data provider that receives a revocation request from a consumer 
through a revocation method it makes available must revoke the 
authorized third party's access and

[[Page 90995]]

notify the authorized third party of the request in a timely manner.


Sec.  1033.341  Information about the data provider.

    (a) Requirement to make information about the data provider readily 
identifiable. A data provider must make the information described in 
paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section:
    (1) Readily identifiable to members of the public, meaning the 
information must be at least as available as it would be on a public 
website; and
    (2) Available in both human-readable and machine-readable formats.
    (b) Identifying information. A data provider must disclose in the 
manner required by paragraph (a) of this section:
    (1) Its legal name and, if applicable, any assumed name it is using 
while doing business with the consumer;
    (2) A link to its website;
    (3) Its LEI that is issued by:
    (i) A utility endorsed by the LEI Regulatory Oversight Committee, 
or
    (ii) A utility endorsed or otherwise governed by the Global LEI 
Foundation (or any successor thereof) after the Global LEI Foundation 
assumes operational governance of the global LEI system; and
    (4) Contact information that enables a consumer or third party to 
receive answers to questions about accessing covered data under this 
part.
    (c) Developer interface documentation. For its developer interface, 
a data provider must disclose in the manner required by paragraph (a) 
of this section documentation, including metadata describing all 
covered data and their corresponding data fields, and other 
documentation sufficient for a third party to access and use the 
interface. A data provider is not required to make publicly available 
information that would impede its ability to deny a third party access 
to its developer interface, consistent with Sec.  1033.321. Indicia 
that documentation is sufficient for a third party to access and use a 
developer interface include conformance to a consensus standard. The 
documentation must:
    (1) Be maintained and updated as reasonably necessary for third 
parties to access and use the interface in accordance with the terms to 
which data providers are subject under this part;
    (2) Include how third parties can get technical support and report 
issues with the interface; and
    (3) Be easy to understand and use, similar to data providers' 
documentation for other commercially available products.
    (d) Performance disclosure. On or before the final day of each 
calendar month, a data provider must disclose in the manner required by 
paragraph (a) of this section the quantitative minimum performance 
specification for the response rate described in Sec.  
1033.311(c)(1)(i) through (iv) that the data provider's developer 
interface achieved in the previous calendar month. The data provider's 
disclosure must include at least a rolling 13 months of the required 
monthly figure, except that the disclosure need not include the monthly 
figure for months prior to the compliance date applicable to the data 
provider. The data provider must disclose the metric as a percentage 
rounded to four decimal places, such as ``99.9999 percent.''


Sec.  1033.351  Policies and procedures.

    (a) Reasonable written policies and procedures. A data provider 
must establish and maintain written policies and procedures that are 
reasonably designed to achieve the objectives set forth in subparts B 
and C of this part, including paragraphs (b) through (d) of this 
section. Policies and procedures must be appropriate to the size, 
nature, and complexity of the data provider's activities. A data 
provider has flexibility to design policies and procedures to avoid 
acting inconsistently with its other legal obligations, or in a way 
that could reasonably hinder enforcement against unlawful or 
potentially unlawful conduct. A data provider must periodically review 
the policies and procedures required by this section and update them as 
appropriate to ensure their continued effectiveness.
    (b) Policies and procedures for making covered data available. The 
policies and procedures required by paragraph (a) of this section must 
be reasonably designed to ensure that:
    (1) Making available covered data. A data provider creates a record 
of the data fields of covered data in the data provider's control or 
possession, what covered data are not made available through a consumer 
or developer interface pursuant to an exception in Sec.  1033.221, and 
the reasons the exception applies. Indicia that a data provider's 
record of such data fields complies with the requirements of this 
paragraph (b)(1) include listing data fields that conform to those 
published by a consensus standard.
    (2) Denials of developer interface access. When a data provider 
denies a third party access to a developer interface pursuant to Sec.  
1033.321, the data provider:
    (i) Creates a record substantiating the basis for denial; and
    (ii) Communicates in a timely manner to the third party, 
electronically or in writing, the reason(s) for the denial.
    (3) Denials of information requests. When a data provider denies a 
request for information for a reason described in Sec.  1033.331(c), to 
the extent the communication of the denial is not required to be 
standardized by Sec.  1033.311(b), the data provider:
    (i) Creates a record substantiating the basis for the denial; and
    (ii) Communicates in a timely manner to the consumer or third 
party, electronically or in writing, the type(s) of information denied, 
if applicable, and the reason(s) for the denial.
    (c) Policies and procedures for ensuring accuracy--(1) In general. 
The policies and procedures required by paragraph (a) of this section 
must be reasonably designed to ensure that covered data are accurately 
made available through the data provider's developer interface.
    (2) Elements. In developing its policies and procedures regarding 
accuracy, a data provider must consider, for example:
    (i) Implementing the format requirements of Sec.  1033.311(b); and
    (ii) Addressing information provided by a consumer or a third party 
regarding inaccuracies in the covered data made available through its 
developer interface.
    (3) Indicia of compliance. Indicia that a data provider's policies 
and procedures regarding accuracy are reasonable include whether the 
policies and procedures conform to a consensus standard regarding 
accuracy.
    (d) Policies and procedures for record retention. The policies and 
procedures required by paragraph (a) of this section must be reasonably 
designed to ensure retention of records that are evidence of compliance 
with subparts B and C of this part.
    (1) Retention period. Records that are evidence of a data 
provider's actions in response to a consumer's or third party's request 
for information or a third party's request to access a developer 
interface must be retained for at least three years after a data 
provider has responded to the request. All other records that are 
evidence of compliance with subparts B and C of this part must be 
retained for a reasonable period of time of at least three years from 
the date of the action required under subparts B and C of this part.
    (2) Certain records retained pursuant to policies and procedures. 
Records retained pursuant to policies and procedures required under 
paragraph (a) of this section must include, without limitation:

[[Page 90996]]

    (i) Records documenting requests for a third party's access to an 
interface, actions taken in response to such requests, and reasons for 
denying access, if applicable, for at least three years after the data 
provider has responded to the request;
    (ii) Records providing evidence of fulfillment of requests for 
information, actions taken in response to such requests, and reasons 
for not making the information available, if applicable, for at least 
three years after the data provider has responded to the request;
    (iii) Records documenting that the third party has followed the 
authorization procedures in Sec.  1033.401 to access data on behalf of 
a consumer, for at least three years after such records are generated;
    (iv) Records providing evidence of actions taken by a consumer and 
a data provider to revoke a third party's access pursuant to any 
revocation method made available by a data provider, for at least three 
years after the revocation;
    (v) Records providing evidence of commercially reasonable 
performance described in Sec.  1033.311(c)(2)(ii), for at least three 
years after the period recorded;
    (vi) Written policies and procedures required under this section 
for three years from the time such material was last applicable; and
    (vii) Disclosures required under Sec.  1033.341, for three years 
from the time such material was disclosed to the public.

Subpart D--Authorized Third Parties


Sec.  1033.401  Third party authorization; general.

    To become an authorized third party, the third party must seek 
access to covered data from a data provider on behalf of a consumer to 
provide a product or service the consumer requested and:
    (a) Provide the consumer with an authorization disclosure as 
described in Sec.  1033.411;
    (b) Provide a statement to the consumer in the authorization 
disclosure, as provided in Sec.  1033.411(b)(5), certifying that the 
third party agrees to the obligations described in Sec.  1033.421; and
    (c) Obtain the consumer's express informed consent to access 
covered data on behalf of the consumer by obtaining an authorization 
disclosure that is signed by the consumer electronically or in writing.


Sec.  1033.411  Authorization disclosure.

    (a) In general. To comply with Sec.  1033.401(a), a third party 
must provide the consumer with an authorization disclosure 
electronically or in writing. The authorization disclosure must be 
clear, conspicuous, and segregated from other material. The names 
included in the authorization disclosure as required by paragraphs 
(b)(1) and (2) of this section and by Sec.  1033.431(b) must be readily 
understandable to the consumer.
    (b) Content. The authorization disclosure must include:
    (1) The name of the third party that will be authorized to access 
covered data pursuant to the third party authorization procedures in 
Sec.  1033.401.
    (2) The name of the data provider that controls or possesses the 
covered data that the third party identified in paragraph (b)(1) of 
this section seeks to access on the consumer's behalf.
    (3) A brief description of the product or service the consumer has 
requested from the third party identified in paragraph (b)(1) of this 
section and a statement that the third party will collect, use, and 
retain the consumer's data only as reasonably necessary to provide that 
product or service to the consumer.
    (4) The categories of data that will be accessed. Categories must 
have a substantially similar level of specificity as the categories in 
Sec.  1033.211.
    (5) The certification statement described in Sec.  1033.401(b).
    (6) A brief description of the expected duration of data collection 
and a statement that collection will not last longer than one year 
after the consumer's most recent reauthorization.
    (7) A description of the revocation method described in Sec.  
1033.421(h)(1).
    (c) Language access--(1) In general. The authorization disclosure 
must be in the same language as the communication in which the 
authorization disclosure is conveyed to the consumer. Any translation 
of the authorization disclosure provided to the consumer must be 
complete and accurate.
    (2) Additional languages. If the authorization disclosure is in a 
language other than English, it must include a link to an English-
language translation, and it is permitted to include links to 
translations in other languages. If the authorization disclosure is in 
English, it is permitted to include links to translations in other 
languages.


Sec.  1033.421  Third party obligations.

    (a) General limitation on collection, use, and retention of 
consumer data--(1) In general. The third party will limit its 
collection, use, and retention of covered data to what is reasonably 
necessary to provide the consumer's requested product or service.
    (2) Specific purposes. For purposes of paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section, the following are not part of, or reasonably necessary to 
provide, any other product or service:
    (i) Targeted advertising;
    (ii) Cross-selling of other products or services; or
    (iii) The sale of covered data.
    (b) Collection of covered data--(1) In general. Collection of 
covered data for purposes of paragraph (a) of this section includes the 
scope of covered data requested and the duration and frequency of 
collection of covered data.
    (2) Maximum duration. In addition to the limitation described in 
paragraph (a) of this section, the third party will limit the duration 
of collection of covered data to a maximum period of one year after the 
consumer's most recent authorization.
    (3) Reauthorization after maximum duration. To collect covered data 
beyond the one-year maximum period described in paragraph (b)(2) of 
this section, the third party will obtain a new authorization from the 
consumer pursuant to Sec.  1033.401 no later than the anniversary of 
the most recent authorization from the consumer. The third party is 
permitted to ask the consumer for a new authorization pursuant to Sec.  
1033.401 in a reasonable manner. Indicia that a new authorization 
request is reasonable include its conformance to a consensus standard.
    (c) Use of covered data. Use of covered data for purposes of 
paragraph (a) of this section includes both the third party's own use 
of covered data and provision of covered data by that third party to 
other third parties. Examples of uses of covered data that are 
permitted under paragraph (a) of this section include:
    (1) Uses that are specifically required under other provisions of 
law, including to comply with a properly authorized subpoena or summons 
or to respond to a judicial process or government regulatory authority;
    (2) Uses that are reasonably necessary to protect against or 
prevent actual or potential fraud, unauthorized transactions, claims, 
or other liability;
    (3) Servicing or processing the product or service the consumer 
requested; and
    (4) Uses that are reasonably necessary to improve the product or 
service the consumer requested.
    (d) Accuracy. A third party will establish and maintain written 
policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure that 
covered data are

[[Page 90997]]

accurately received from a data provider and accurately provided to 
another third party, if applicable.
    (1) Flexibility. A third party has flexibility to determine its 
policies and procedures in light of the size, nature, and complexity of 
its activities.
    (2) Periodic review. A third party will periodically review its 
policies and procedures and update them as appropriate to ensure their 
continued effectiveness.
    (3) Elements. In developing its policies and procedures regarding 
accuracy, a third party must consider, for example:
    (i) Accepting covered data in a format required by Sec.  
1033.311(b); and
    (ii) Addressing information provided by a consumer, data provider, 
or another third party regarding inaccuracies in the covered data.
    (4) Indicia of compliance. Indicia that a third party's policies 
and procedures are reasonable include whether the policies and 
procedures conform to a consensus standard regarding accuracy.
    (e) Data security. (1) A third party will apply to its systems for 
the collection, use, and retention of covered data an information 
security program that satisfies the applicable rules issued pursuant to 
section 501 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 6801); or
    (2) If the third party is not subject to section 501 of the Gramm-
Leach-Bliley Act, the third party will apply to its systems for the 
collection, use, and retention of covered data the information security 
program required by the Federal Trade Commission's Standards for 
Safeguarding Customer Information, 16 CFR part 314.
    (f) Provision of covered data to other third parties. Before 
providing covered data to another third party, subject to the 
limitation described in paragraphs (a) and (c) of this section, the 
third party will require the other third party by contract to comply 
with the third party obligations in paragraphs (a) through (f) of this 
section and the condition in paragraph (i) of this section upon receipt 
of the notice described in paragraph (h)(2) of this section.
    (g) Ensuring consumers are informed. (1) Upon obtaining 
authorization to access covered data on the consumer's behalf, the 
third party will provide the consumer with a copy of the authorization 
disclosure that the consumer has signed electronically or in writing 
and that reflects the date of the consumer's electronic or written 
signature. The third party will deliver that copy of the authorization 
disclosure to the consumer or make it available in a location that is 
readily accessible to the consumer, such as the third party's 
interface. If the third party makes the authorization disclosure 
available in such a location, the third party will ensure it is 
accessible to the consumer until the third party's access to the 
consumer's covered data terminates.
    (2) The third party will provide contact information that enables a 
consumer to receive answers to questions about the third party's access 
to the consumer's covered data. The contact information must be readily 
identifiable to the consumer.
    (3) The third party will establish and maintain reasonable written 
policies and procedures designed to ensure that the third party 
provides to the consumer, upon request, the information listed in this 
paragraph (g)(3) about the third party's access to the consumer's 
covered data. The third party has flexibility to determine its policies 
and procedures in light of the size, nature, and complexity of its 
activities, and the third party will periodically review its policies 
and procedures and update them as appropriate to ensure their continued 
effectiveness. The policies and procedures must be designed to ensure 
that the third party provides the following to the consumer, upon 
request:
    (i) Categories of covered data collected;
    (ii) Reasons for collecting the covered data;
    (iii) Names of parties with which the covered data was shared. The 
names must be readily understandable to the consumer;
    (iv) Reasons for sharing the covered data;
    (v) Status of the third party's authorization;
    (vi) How the consumer can revoke the third party's authorization to 
access the consumer's covered data and verification the third party has 
adhered to requests for revocation; and
    (vii) A copy of any data aggregator certification statement that 
was provided to the consumer pursuant to Sec.  1033.431(c)(2).
    (h) Revocation of third party authorization--(1) Provision of 
revocation method. The third party will provide the consumer with a 
method to revoke the third party's authorization to access the 
consumer's covered data that is as easy to access and operate as the 
initial authorization. The third party will also ensure the consumer is 
not subject to costs or penalties for revoking the third party's 
authorization.
    (2) Notice of revocation. The third party will notify the data 
provider, any data aggregator, and other third parties to whom it has 
provided the consumer's covered data when the third party receives a 
revocation request from the consumer.
    (i) Effect of maximum duration and revocation on collection, use, 
and retention. If a consumer does not provide a new authorization as 
described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, or if a third party 
receives a revocation request as described in paragraph (h)(1) of this 
section or notice of a consumer's revocation request as described in 
Sec.  1033.331(e), a third party will:
    (1) No longer collect covered data pursuant to the most recent 
authorization; and
    (2) No longer use or retain covered data that was previously 
collected pursuant to the most recent authorization unless use or 
retention of that covered data remains reasonably necessary to provide 
the consumer's requested product or service under paragraph (a) of this 
section.


Sec.  1033.431  Use of data aggregator.

    (a) Responsibility for authorization procedures when the third 
party will use a data aggregator. A data aggregator is permitted to 
perform the authorization procedures described in Sec.  1033.401 on 
behalf of the third party seeking authorization under Sec.  1033.401 to 
access covered data. However, the third party seeking authorization 
remains responsible for compliance with the authorization procedures 
described in Sec.  1033.401, and the data aggregator must comply with 
paragraph (c) of this section.
    (b) Disclosure of the name of the data aggregator. The 
authorization disclosure must include the name of any data aggregator 
that will assist the third party seeking authorization under Sec.  
1033.401 with accessing covered data and a brief description of the 
services the data aggregator will provide.
    (c) Data aggregator certification. When the third party seeking 
authorization under Sec.  1033.401 will use a data aggregator to assist 
with accessing covered data on behalf of a consumer, the data 
aggregator must certify to the consumer that it agrees to the 
conditions on accessing the consumer's data in Sec.  1033.421(a) 
through (f) and the condition in Sec.  1033.421(i) upon receipt of the 
notice described in Sec.  1033.421(h)(2) before accessing the 
consumer's data. For this requirement to be satisfied:
    (1) The third party seeking authorization under Sec.  1033.401 must 
include the data aggregator's certification in the authorization 
disclosure described in Sec.  1033.411; or

[[Page 90998]]

    (2) The data aggregator must provide its certification to the 
consumer, electronically or in writing, separate from the authorization 
disclosure. The certification must be in the same language as the 
authorization disclosure and must be clear, conspicuous, and segregated 
from other material. The name of any data aggregator in the 
certification must be readily understandable to the consumer. If, after 
the consumer has completed the authorization procedures, the authorized 
third party retains a data aggregator to assist with accessing covered 
data on behalf of the consumer, this data aggregator must provide its 
certification in accordance with this paragraph (c)(2).


Sec.  1033.441  Policies and procedures for third party record 
retention.

    (a) General requirement. A third party that is a covered person or 
service provider, as defined in 12 U.S.C. 5481(6) and (26), must 
establish and maintain written policies and procedures that are 
reasonably designed to ensure retention of records that are evidence of 
compliance with the requirements of subpart D of this part.
    (b) Retention period. Records required under paragraph (a) of this 
section must be retained for a reasonable period of time, not less than 
three years after a third party obtains the consumer's most recent 
authorization under Sec.  1033.401(a).
    (c) Flexibility. A third party covered under paragraph (a) of this 
section has flexibility to determine its policies and procedures in 
light of the size, nature, and complexity of its activities.
    (d) Periodic review. A third party covered under paragraph (a) of 
this section must periodically review its policies and procedures and 
update them as appropriate to ensure their continued effectiveness to 
evidence compliance with the requirements of subpart D of this part.
    (e) Certain records retained pursuant to policies and procedures. 
Records retained pursuant to policies and procedures required under 
this section must include, without limitation:
    (1) A copy of the authorization disclosure that is signed by the 
consumer electronically or in writing and reflects the date of the 
consumer's signature and a record of actions taken by the consumer, 
including actions taken through a data provider or another third party, 
to revoke the third party's authorization; and
    (2) With respect to a data aggregator covered under paragraph (a) 
of this section, a copy of any data aggregator certification statement 
that was provided to the consumer pursuant to Sec.  1033.431(c)(2).

Appendix A to Part 1033--Personal Financial Data Rights Rule: How to 
Apply for Recognition as a Standard Setter

    If you want the CFPB to designate your organization as a 
recognized standard setter, you should follow the steps described 
below.
    We may amend this process from time to time.

Step One: Requesting Recognition

    Submit a written request for recognition.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Sensitive personal information should not be provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This should include key contact information, evidence of your 
organization's policies and practices,\2\ and an explanation of how 
your organization satisfies each of the requirements in the Personal 
Financial Data Rights rule to be a recognized standard setter.\3\ 
Your request should also describe how current and/or anticipated 
standards issued by your organization relate to open banking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Evidence may include (but is not limited to) charters, 
bylaws, policies, procedures, fee schedules, meeting minutes, 
membership lists, financial statements/disclosures, publicly 
available materials, and issued standards.
    \3\ Relevant legal requirements are described at 12 CFR 
1033.141. When explaining how your organization meets these 
requirements, you should reference relevant elements of the evidence 
you submit in support of your application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In advance of filing your request, you can seek a pre-filing 
meeting with us. We can walk you through the application process and 
help you make a complete submission.
    Send formal submissions, as well as requests for pre-filing 
meetings, to: [email protected].

Step Two: Additional Information and Public Comment

    After reviewing your submission, we may request additional 
information to ensure that your application is complete.
    We may publish your application.
    We may also seek public input on your application and invite 
your responses to any information we receive on that basis.

Step Three: Our Review

    When reviewing your application, we consider whether your 
policies and practices meet all the requirements for recognition. We 
also evaluate whether your application is accurate and complete.
    We prioritize and review applications based on the extent to 
which recognizing your organization helps us to implement open 
banking.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Section 1033 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act, 12 
U.S.C. 5533, describes the CFPB's role in implementing open banking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Step Four: Application Decision

    CFPB recognition will be publicly disclosed on our website, 
along with the applicable terms and conditions of such recognition, 
such as its duration.
    If the CFPB declines to recognize your organization, we will 
notify you.
    You may withdraw your application at any time or for any reason.
    If we determine that your organization is close to meeting, but 
does not yet meet, the requirements for CFPB recognition, we may ask 
you to provide a written plan specifying how and when you will take 
the steps required for full recognition. If that plan is 
satisfactory, we may state on our website that your organization has 
received contingent recognition. Once you provide us with evidence 
that you have successfully executed on that plan (or otherwise 
addressed the relevant contingences), the CFPB may extend full 
recognition.

Step Five: Recognition

    There are several points to keep in mind about recognition.
    As a recognized standard setter, you agree that the CFPB may 
monitor your organization and that you will provide information that 
we request.
    You must also provide us, within 10 days, written explanation of 
any material change to information that was submitted with your 
application or during recognition, as well as any reason your 
organization may no longer meet underlying requirements for 
recognition.
    In addition, you must meet any other specified terms and 
conditions of your recognition, which may include our reserving the 
right to observe or participate in standard setting.
    If your recognition is set to expire, you can apply for re-
recognition by re-starting at Step One at least 180 days before 
expiration. We may temporarily extend your recognition while we 
consider your request for re-recognition.
    We may modify or revoke your recognition. The CFPB expects to 
notify you of the reasons it intends to revoke or modify 
recognition, and to provide your organization with an opportunity to 
address the CFPB's concerns.

Rohit Chopra,
Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2024-25079 Filed 11-15-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P`