Open banking policy fight sees big spending from traditional banks and fintechs

The lobbying meter is running hot in Washington over who gets to control your financial data. Traditional banks and fintech companies both ramped up spending last week as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s revised open banking proposal made its way to the White House for review, setting up one of the most consequential regulatory battles in financial services this decade.

The CFPB transmitted its revised proposal, built on Section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Act, to the White House during the week of August 3-9. That proposal attempts to settle thorny questions about data access rights, fee structures, liability frameworks, security standards, and how much latitude third-party companies get when tapping into consumer banking data. Both sides have poured millions into lobbying efforts to shape the answer.

The battle lines

On one side: the banking establishment. The Bank Policy Institute, American Bankers Association, and Consumer Bankers Association are leading the charge for traditional financial institutions. Their core argument centers on security concerns, liability protections, and the ability to charge fees when third parties access customer data held on their systems.

On the other: fintech upstarts. The American Fintech Council and the Financial Technology Association represent companies whose business models often depend on frictionless access to consumer banking data. Think budgeting apps, lending platforms, and payment services that need to pull your transaction history from your bank to function.

The original CFPB rule, finalized in October 2024, landed squarely in fintech’s favor. It required banks to provide data access without charging fees, with compliance timelines phased between 2026 and 2030. Banks, predictably, were not thrilled. Litigation followed, challenging the rule’s legal foundations and putting the entire framework in limbo.

By August 2025, the CFPB had issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking signaling it was willing to revisit the fee question and other access conditions. That set the stage for the current revised proposal now sitting on the White House’s desk.

Why this fight matters beyond Washington

If banks can charge significant fees every time a fintech company requests your data, those costs will flow downstream. Fintechs either absorb them (cutting into already thin margins) or pass them along to consumers. Either way, the competitive pressure that open banking is supposed to create gets diluted.

Consumer advocacy groups have raised concerns about potential regulatory capture, warning that if banking interests dominate the rulemaking process, the result could be higher consumer costs and less innovation.

The White House wildcard

The phased compliance timeline from the original rule, stretching to 2030, means the largest banks would face requirements first. Smaller institutions would get more runway. But the revised proposal could alter those timelines, the fee structures, or both.

The ongoing litigation against the original 2024 rule adds another layer of uncertainty. Even if the White House greenlights the revised proposal, legal challenges could delay implementation or force further revisions. Financial institutions on both sides are essentially fighting a multi-front war: lobbying Congress, pressuring the CFPB, litigating in court, and now trying to influence the executive review process.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.