A rare alliance is taking shape across the digital finance landscape. Crypto advocacy groups and fintech trade associations are joining forces with retailer coalitions and consumer-tech organizations to push back against big banks that seek to narrow the scope of open banking rules in the United States.
At the center of the fight is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s effort to define how Americans can access, control, and share their personal financial data with trusted third parties—from budgeting apps and lending platforms to self-custodial crypto wallets and stablecoin on-ramps. Recent statements from industry groups and new skirmishes in court have sharpened the debate: Crypto & Fintech Unite: who truly owns financial data, what counts as a “consumer representative,” and whether banks can charge data access fees that could choke off competition. Several advocacy coalitions have publicly urged the CFPB to finalize strong consumer data rights and keep the path open for APIs that allow permissioned access without gatekeeping or tolls.
Crypto & Fintech Unite. This convergence of interests is not merely a turf battle between incumbents and upstarts. It’s a defining moment for digital competition, financial inclusion, and the future of open finance in the world’s largest economy. If open banking is implemented with clear consumer data rights, robust security standards, and a level playing field,
U.S. consumers could enjoy richer product choice, faster innovation, and better pricing. If it’s narrowed, delayed, or de facto paywalled, the U.S. risks falling behind global leaders and reinforcing legacy moats that make switching financial providers costly and frustrating. Against this backdrop, crypto and fintech groups have aligned on a simple premise: your data belongs to you—and you should be able to use it, port it, and benefit from it safely and affordably.
What “Open Banking Rules” Actually Cover: Crypto & Fintech Unite
Open banking centers on a handful of deceptively simple ideas. First, consumers should be able to securely retrieve their transaction history, balances, and account details from banks and other data holders. Second, they should be able to share that data—by consent—with authorized third parties that provide services such as payments, underwriting, financial planning, and crypto asset management. Third, access should occur via standardized, well-documented APIs with sensible authentication and data minimization practices, not through risky screen scraping. Fourth, data access should not be constrained by proprietary tolls or exclusivity arrangements that weaken competition or strand consumers in closed ecosystems.
The CFPB’s Section 1033 rulemaking—often described as the U.S. “open banking rule”—seeks to turn these principles into binding requirements. The path has been tumultuous, with a final rule challenged in court, followed by a policy reset in 2025 as the Bureau moved toward revising and clarifying the framework and soliciting fresh public comment on key questions like who qualifies as a consumer’s representative and whether covered institutions may assess data access fees.
Why Crypto and Fintech Groups Are Teaming Up
A Shared Stake in Data Portability
At first glance, crypto associations and fintech trade groups don’t always march in lockstep. But on data portability and user permissioning, their interests align. Fintech lenders, aggregators, robo-advisors, and budgeting apps rely on reliable, standardized, low-friction access to bank data—with the customer’s permission—to deliver competitive products. Crypto wallets, exchanges, and stablecoin providers likewise depend on seamless connectivity to the traditional banking system for fiat on- and off-ramps, compliance checks, and fraud detection. If bank data access becomes expensive, restricted, or ambiguous, both sectors feel the squeeze.
In recent filings and public statements, coalitions spanning crypto, fintech, and retail urged the CFPB to affirm that consumers—not banks—own their financial data, and to lock in affordable, secure API access that doesn’t force third parties into narrow fiduciary boxes or subject them to pay-to-play fees. They warn that data tolls could isolate wallets and stablecoins from mainstream rails, undermining financial innovation and consumer choice.
Keeping America Competitive
Another point of alignment is competitiveness. U.S. fintech leaders argue that if open banking rules are watered down, the U.S. will trail jurisdictions where interoperable data sharing is already standard practice. Crypto advocates add that interoperable data and payments access are essential to the responsible growth of tokenized payments, stablecoin settlement, and real-time financial services. Both camps frame open banking as a catalyst for lower fees, faster switching, and better personalization, not a regulatory indulgence.
The Banks’ Case—and Why It Matters
The Incumbent Concerns
Large banks and their trade groups have challenged the CFPB’s approach on both procedural and substantive grounds. They argue that Section 1033 should be read more narrowly, that a massive API infrastructure goes beyond what Congress intended, and that banks face real costs and liabilities in responding to third-party requests. Some banking organizations have also pushed back against claims from fintech and retailer groups about how the rule should work, positioning themselves as guardians of consumer protection, data security, and operational resilience.
Fees, Fiduciaries, and Definitions
Three flashpoints dominate the docket. First is fees: can data providers charge for access, and if so, on what basis? Banks contend that responding to API calls isn’t free; fintechs and crypto groups argue that data access fees would handicap competition and discourage entry. Second is who counts as a consumer’s “representative.”
If that category is limited to fiduciaries, it could exclude many innovative service providers and force consumers into clunky manual workflows that undercut the very goals of open banking. Third is security and liability allocation, where both sides claim the mantle of consumer protection while disagreeing on implementation. These questions are now central to the CFPB’s reconsideration of the rule, as reflected in its request for public input.
The Courtroom Backdrop
Litigation and a Policy Reset
The final Section 1033 rule issued in late 2024 quickly drew lawsuits from bank trade groups and regional institutions. In 2025, a federal court granted a stay while the CFPB signaled a shift toward revising the rule rather than defending every prior element, opening the door to renewed stakeholder engagement. The Financial Technology Association has intervened and filed a briefing urging the courts to uphold a lawful path forward, underscoring fintech’s stake in a stable, innovation-friendly regime.
Why the Legal Timeline Matters for Markets
For innovators and investors, the timeline is not academic. Product roadmaps for embedded finance, data-driven underwriting, and crypto-fiat connectivity hinge on clarity around API access and compliance obligations. A prolonged freeze injects policy risk into strategic planning and capital allocation. Conversely, a durable, balanced rule lowers barriers to entry, encourages banks to standardize interfaces, and gives compliance teams a stable blueprint for data governance.
How Open Banking Intersects with Crypto
Stablecoins, Wallets, and On-Ramps
The crypto community’s enthusiasm for open banking is pragmatic. Stablecoin issuers and wallet providers need uninterrupted access to bank rails for minting, redemption, payroll flows, and merchant settlement. If banks could levy broad data access fees or limit API-based permissions, the costs would ripple through to consumers and merchants, potentially cutting off wallets and stablecoins from mainstream usage. Crypto groups are consequently pressing for rules that keep APIs permissioned, secure, and affordable, with liability calibrated to the roles each party actually plays.
Compliance By Design
Robust open banking can also improve compliance. With standardized, secure APIs, crypto platforms can fetch KYC-relevant bank data, verify sources of funds, and monitor patterns that may signal fraud or sanctions risk, all with the user’s consent. This reduces reliance on brittle scraping, lowers error rates, and supports real-time risk analytics. Clear data rights and interoperable standards help regulated crypto businesses operate with the transparency regulators want.
The Consumer Stakes: Ownership, Security, and Choice
“My Data, My Choice”
The animating principle behind the coalition is simple: consumers own their data. That means they should be free to share it with the apps, services, and wallets they select, revoke consent when they wish, and understand exactly which fields are being shared and for what purpose. Advocacy groups emphasize that this is not about weakening consumer protections; it’s about enabling consumer agency within a protective framework that includes granular permissions, data minimization, and revocation tools built into the API layer.
Security Without Lock-In
Banks caution—reasonably—that more data flows can increase attack surfaces. The answer is not lock-in, advocates say, but security by design: strong authentication, tokenized access, auditable logs, and standardized scopes that limit exposure. When best practices are encoded into the rules, third-party access is more secure than the status quo reliance on passwords and scraping. The end state is a safer, more transparent data layer that all compliant participants can use—without any one actor extracting rent through gatekeeping.
The Global Lens: Lessons from Abroad
While the U.S. hammers out definitions, other jurisdictions have moved ahead. The U.K. pioneered open banking standards, while the EU has pushed data portability through PSD2 and is now shaping the Financial Data Access framework. The lesson for the U.S. is not to copy-paste, but to recognize that clear, interoperable rules accelerate innovation. A well-calibrated American open banking rule could blend the consumer protections regulators require with the market dynamism that has long distinguished U.S. tech.
Big Tech, Wallets, and the Oversight Context
Open banking doesn’t exist in isolation. The CFPB has also moved to supervise large nonbank payment firms and wallets more like banks, citing the need for consistent oversight across the payments ecosystem. That step—controversial among fintech trade groups—speaks to a broader regulatory theme: if nonbanks walk and quack like critical financial infrastructure, they will be treated accordingly. The open banking fight, therefore, unfolds alongside a parallel discussion about how to govern payment apps, digital wallets, and platform intermediaries at comparable standards.
What Each Side Wants in the Revised Rule
The Crypto & Fintech Coalition’s Priorities
Advocates for crypto and fintech coalesce around five priorities. First, affirm data ownership: the rule should state plainly that consumers own their financial data and can delegate access. Second, mandate secure APIs with standardized scopes, authentication, and event logging. Third, prohibit data access fees (or strictly confine them) so banks cannot impose tolls that cripple competition.
Fourth, clarify a broad definition of consumer representative that includes regulated fintechs and compliant crypto providers—not just fiduciaries—subject to clear duties of care and security. Fifth, require data minimization and purpose limitation, so third parties collect only what they need and retain it only as long as necessary. Public statements from industry groups emphasize these pillars and warn that fees or narrow definitions could strand innovative services, including stablecoin wallets and budgeting tools.
The Banks’ “Safety and Soundness” Frame
Banks prioritize operational resilience, liability clarity, and the right to recover reasonable costs for building and maintaining secure data infrastructure. They argue that the absence of fees or clear duty frameworks, the rule could shift costs onto incumbents while exposing consumers to risks when third parties mismanage data. Banking associations have also challenged several claims from fintech and retailer groups, signaling a prolonged policy and litigation path unless the CFPB threads the needle.
How This Fight Could Reshape the Market
For Consumers
A robust open banking regime means easier switching between banks, faster eligibility checks for loans and credit, and personalized financial insights without endless forms. It also means wallet interoperability and smoother fiat–crypto bridges, provided third-party access remains affordable and secure. If the rule tilts toward fees and restrictive definitions, consumers may see fewer choices, higher costs, and a return to manual uploads and screen scraping—precisely what open banking is meant to replace.
For Startups and Developers
Clear, testable standards unlock API productization and reduce legal ambiguity, allowing startups to focus on user experience and risk controls rather than bespoke bank integrations. Uncertainty, by contrast, raises compliance costs, deters investment, and entrenches positions of scale. A balanced rule could catalyze a new wave of data-driven finance, from cash-flow underwriting to tokenized payments and embedded insurance.
For Banks
Contrary to caricature, many banks benefit from open banking when it’s implemented with symmetry. Standardized APIs can reduce screen-scraping load, support auditable consent, and open new partnership channels with fintechs and crypto providers. Banks that embrace platform thinking can monetize services through value-added products rather than data tolls, leveraging strengths in compliance, treasury, and customer trust.
The Policy Road Ahead
From Courtrooms to Comment Dockets
In mid-2025, the litigation over the 1033 rule prompted a stay while the Bureau signaled a proposal to revise and clarify the framework and then issued an ANPR to collect data and comments. The ANPR focused on representative definitions, fee assessments, and implementation mechanics—areas at the heart of the industry debate. These steps reset the timetable but also create a chance to build a broader consensus if stakeholders converge on workable guardrails that protect consumers while sustaining open market access.
Likely Compromises
Expect a rule that codifies APIs, demands granular consent, and requires minimum security controls, including robust authentication, event logging, and breach duties. On fees, a plausible compromise is limited, cost-based recovery under narrow conditions, subject to transparent audits and non-discrimination, alongside hard bans on pay-to-play models that would throttle startups. On representatives, the Bureau may pair a broad eligibility definition with registration, certification, or bonding requirements, avoiding a fiduciary-only chokepoint while ensuring meaningful accountability.
Oversight and Harmonization
Open banking will also need harmonization with payments supervision for large nonbank players and with privacy norms like data minimization and deletion rights. Recent moves to supervise payment apps and wallets more like banks underscore the Bureau’s intent to keep rules consistent. The endgame: a coherent data and payments framework where banks, fintechs, and crypto providers operate under comparable, risk-appropriate standards.
Practical Steps for Companies Right Now
For Crypto Projects
Projects that rely on bank connectivity should build to API standards where available, implement consent management dashboards, and adopt least-privilege data flows. They should also prepare contingency plans for access fee scenarios, including cost modeling and alternative partners that support open interfaces.
For Fintech Platforms
Fintechs should document data lineage, codify retention and deletion schedules, and integrate policy-as-code for scope-based data calls. Investing early in third-party risk management and security certifications will ease compliance under a revised rule.
For Banks and Data Providers
Banks can turn compliance into differentiation by offering developer-friendly portals, sandbox environments, and clear SLA terms. Rather than rely on data tolls, they can monetize via premium services such as enhanced analytics, identity verification, and fraud-signal APIs.
Conclusion
The campaign by crypto and fintech advocacy groups to defend open banking rules, Crypto & Fintech Unite, marks a pivotal moment for U.S. financial innovation. Big banks have legitimate concerns about security, liability, and cost, but data access fees and narrow representative definitions risk freezing the very competition that benefits consumers. Crypto & Fintech Unite: The path forward is not a zero-sum victory for one side, but a balanced, secure, and truly open framework that gives Americans real ownership of their financial data. If the CFPB’s revised rule delivers clear rights, strong security, and level-field access, the U.S. can set a global standard—one that supports consumer choice, market dynamism, Crypto & Fintech Unite: and responsible crypto-fiat interoperability for the decade ahead.
FAQs
Q: What exactly is “open banking” in the U.S. context?
Open banking refers to rules under Section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Crypto & Fintech Unite: Act that would let consumers securely access and share their financial data with authorized third parties via standardized APIs. The CFPB’s open banking rule aims to formalize these rights while setting security, Crypto & Fintech Unite: consent, and liability norms. Crypto & Fintech Unite: The precise contours are being refined through litigation and a reconsideration process in 2025.
Q: Why are crypto groups involved if this is a banking rule?
Crypto wallets, stablecoin issuers, and exchanges depend on seamless connectivity to bank rails for on-ramps, off-ramps, Crypto & Fintech Unite: and compliance checks. If banks could charge broad data access fees or limit API permissions, it could cut off wallets and stablecoins Crypto & Fintech Unite: from mainstream use—hence the coalition between crypto and fintech advocates.
Q: Are banks completely opposed to open banking?
Not uniformly. Many banks support secure data sharing but oppose aspects they view as overbroad or cost-shifting, such as fee bans or expansive representative definitions. Banking associations have publicly pushed back on certain claims made by fintech and retailer groups.
Q: What’s the status of the rule right now?
A final rule issued in late 2024 faced immediate lawsuits. In 2025, proceedings were stayed as the CFPB moved to revise the rule and issued an ANPR to gather input on definitions and fees. Stakeholders across banking, fintech, and crypto are actively engaging in this process.
Q: How will this affect everyday consumers?
If done right, open banking will make it easier to switch providers, get personalized financial services, and connect wallets and apps securely without risky scraping. If narrowed by fees or restrictive definitions, consumers may face fewer choices, higher costs, and clunkier experiences.
