.svg)
A renewed push from Democratic senators highlights how the stalled Personal Financial Data Rights (PFDR) rule is forcing banks and fintechs to rethink strategy, as shifting political priorities threaten a stable data-access framework for the long term.
Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) wrote last week to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) acting director, Russell Vought, urging the agency to continue developing open banking rules in the interests of consumers.
The senate Democrats outlined the history of the PFDR rule over the past year, from the CFPB finalising it in October 2024, through the agency’s May 2025 decision to stop defending the rule in court and join the plaintiffs in seeking to have it vacated, to the August 2025 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) that sought comments on various aspects of the rule.
They went on to identify two key reasons that a clear open banking rule is important: preventing data providers such as banks from charging fees that would inhibit consumer access to third-party services, and ensuring consumers have broad freedom to authorise third parties to access their data.
The letter also emphasised that the issue is active and unresolved, highlighting the example of JPMorgan Chase seeking to impose fees on third-party data aggregators such as Plaid.
Although the bank later reached an undisclosed agreement with Plaid, the senators argued that its attempt to impose high fees could have had a crippling effect on third-party providers.
The senators concluded that any revisions to the PFDR rule must recognise the importance of consumers being able to exercise their data rights.
Keeping the discussion going
The PFDR rule is intended to implement Section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the foundational statute underpinning the US open banking ecosystem.
Although the law was enacted by Congress in 2010, it did not become a major point of contention among financial institutions until the CFPB published its final version of the PFDR rule in October 2024.
It was immediately challenged in court by Forcht Bank, the Kentucky Bankers Association, and the Bank Policy Institute (BPI), which argued that it exceeded the CFPB’s statutory authority.
Since then, it has been in a state of limbo. As the senators noted in their letter, the rule appeared to have been abandoned in May 2025 when the CFPB decided to stop defending it against the lawsuit. However, the ANPR issued in August suggested the Trump administration still had plans to implement the rule in some form.
Fintech responses to the consultation, which closed in October, were dominated by concerns that banks are seeking to prevent fair competition, weaponising the issue of charging for data access to prevent smaller third parties from offering services that could benefit consumers.
What makes this regulatory uncertainty particularly significant is the underlying economics.
Large banks generate substantial revenue from proprietary services and data monetisation. Open banking threatens this by enabling third parties to offer competing services using the same underlying data.
If banks cannot block data access entirely, charging fees becomes an alternative strategy – one that could price out smaller competitors as large aggregators negotiate favourable terms. This would create a two-tier market structure that systematically disadvantages newer entrants.
The JPMorgan-Plaid settlement illustrates these dynamics. That the parties reached an agreement suggests limits to bank leverage, but the lack of clear rules means every data-sharing arrangement must be privately negotiated. This approach favors institutions with greater resources and market position.
CFPB leadership manoeuvres
The senators' letter must be understood in the context of the CFPB’s uncertain future. In November 2025, the Trump administration nominated Stuart Levenbach, associate director of natural resources, energy, science and water at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to be director of the CFPB.
The OMB is led by Russell Vought, also the CFPB’s acting director, and Levenbach is currently one of his aides.
The widely held belief is that the nomination is a technical act intended to extend Vought's tenure at the CFPB, and that Levenbach is unlikely to ever become director.
Under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, an individual may remain acting director for no longer than 210 days, beginning on the date of the vacancy. However, they may continue in the role while a first or second nomination of a permanent director is pending, and if the nomination is withdrawn, as happened with Jonathan McKernan's nomination, the acting director may continue for an additional 210 days.
This would give Vought time to fulfil plans to shut down the CFPB “within the next two or three months”, as outlined during an appearance on the Charlie Kirk show podcast in October 2025.
The senators' letter, therefore, represents an attempt to preserve regulatory momentum in the face of an acting director committed to dismantling his own agency.
What next?
Under the Trump administration, the CFPB has deprioritised enforcement in key areas and moved away from the more interventionist stance of the previous administration.
The uncertainty around the open banking rule is just one example of the impact of the agency’s trajectory, potentially leading banks to delay or restrict third-party access to data, to the detriment of both fintechs and consumers.
Several scenarios merit consideration. If the CFPB is shut down, Section 1033 remains law but lacks a responsible implementing agency. Other regulators such as the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) or the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) could, in theory, claim jurisdiction, but neither has demonstrated appetite for aggressive rulemaking in this area.
Alternatively, a weakened version of the PFDR might emerge that allows banks to charge “reasonable” fees, creating regulatory certainty but potentially solidifying the existing market structure.
Congressional intervention remains possible, although a divided government makes legislative action unlikely in the near term.
A weakened or shuttered CFPB perpetuates uncertainty for market participants, including non-US firms previously considering entering the market. This could have the effect of dampening innovation and favouring incumbents in payments and banking, while increasing the divergence between US practice and the established open banking frameworks in Europe and other jurisdictions.
As the senators’ letter and the response to the ANPR show, there is still demand from many in the US payments sector for a strong and effective open banking rule that would create a level playing field for third-party providers. However, as the administration seemingly moves to shut down the CFPB, such regulation may fall by the wayside.
For market participants, the strategic imperative is to prepare for extended regulatory uncertainty.
Fintechs dependent on data access should consider diversifying their strategies and building direct bank partnerships, and banks must weigh the reputational risks associated with restricting data access against near-term revenue protection.
The fundamental question remains whether a 15-year-old statutory mandate can be implemented when incumbent interests align with current political priorities. The senators’ letter ensures open banking remains on the agenda, but the timeline for meaningful progress depends on political developments that remain uncertain.
