Consumer Access to Financial Records, 71003-71011 [2020-23723]

Agencies

• BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 216 (Friday, November 6, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71003-71011]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23723]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION

12 CFR Chapter X

[Docket No. CFPB-2020-0034]
RIN 3170-AA78


Consumer Access to Financial Records

AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: Section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) provides, among other things, that 
subject to rules prescribed by the Bureau of Consumer Financial 
Protection (Bureau), a consumer financial services provider must make 
available to a consumer information in the control or possession of the 
provider concerning the consumer financial product or service that the 
consumer obtained from the provider. The Bureau is issuing this Advance 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) to solicit comments and 
information to assist the Bureau in developing regulations to implement 
section 1033.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 4, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB-2020-
0034 or RIN 3170-AA78, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: [email protected]. Include Docket No. CFPB-
2020-0034 or RIN 3170-AA78 in the subject line of the message.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Comment Intake--Section 1033 
ANPR, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 1700 G Street NW, 
Washington, DC 20552.
    Instructions: The Bureau encourages the early submission of 
comments. All submissions should include the agency name and docket 
number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. 
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the Bureau is 
subject to delay, and in light of difficulties associated with mail and 
hand deliveries during the COVID-19 pandemic, commenters are encouraged 
to submit comments electronically. In general, all comments received 
will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov. In 
addition, once the Bureau's headquarters reopens, comments will be 
available for public inspection and copying at 1700 G Street NW, 
Washington, DC 20552, on official business days between the hours of 10 
a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time. At that time, you can make an appointment 
to inspect the documents by telephoning 202-435-9169.
    All comments, including attachments and other supporting materials, 
will become part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. 
Proprietary information or sensitive personal information, such as 
account numbers or Social Security numbers, or names of other 
individuals, should not be included. Comments will not be edited to 
remove any identifying or contact information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Stein, Office of Consumer Credit, 
Payments, and Deposits Markets at 202-435-7700; or Will Wade-Gery, 
Office of Innovation, at [email protected] or 202-435-7700. 
If you require this document in an alternative electronic format, 
please contact [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Bureau is issuing this ANPR to solicit 
comments and information to assist the Bureau in developing regulations 
to implement section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Act (section 1033), which 
provides for consumer access to financial records. The Bureau is 
issuing this ANPR to solicit stakeholder input on ways that the Bureau 
might effectively and efficiently implement the financial record access 
rights described in Section 1033, recognizing that various market 
participants have helped authorized data access become more secure, 
effective, and subject to consumer control. While the Bureau expects 
these trends to continue, there are indications that some emerging 
market practices may not reflect the access rights described in section 
1033. The Bureau is also seeking information regarding the possible 
scope of data that might be made subject to protected access, as well 
as information that might bear on other terms of access, such as those 
relating to security, privacy, effective consumer control over access 
and accessed data, and accountability for data errors and unauthorized 
access. The Bureau is also interested in

[[Page 71004]]

comment on whether and how issues of potential regulatory uncertainty 
with respect to section 1033 and its interaction with other statutes 
within the Bureau's jurisdiction, such as the Fair Credit Reporting 
Act, may be impacting this market to the potential detriment of 
consumers, and seeks information that may help resolve such 
uncertainty. The Bureau invites comment on all aspects of this ANPR 
from all interested parties, including consumers, consumer advocacy 
groups, industry members and trade groups, and other members of the 
public.
    This ANPR proceeds in five sections. Section I summarizes the Dodd-
Frank Act's description of consumer rights to access financial records. 
Section II provides defined terms for the ANPR. Section III provides an 
overview of data access, with a particular focus on the authorized data 
access ecosystem, including the players involved, modes of access, 
competitive incentives and standard-setting, and consumer impacts. 
Section IV summarizes the Bureau's actions to date relating to 
consumer-authorized data access. Section V includes a series of 
questions about whether and how the Bureau might most effectively 
provide regulatory guidance in this area.
    As discussed in greater detail in section IV, the Bureau has taken 
several steps with respect to section 1033, including extensive 
engagement with stakeholders from a range of perspectives. These 
include a request for information issued in 2016, a Bureau statement of 
principles in 2017, and most recently, a February 2020 symposium. The 
valuable information and comments the Bureau has received through its 
stakeholder engagement efforts informs section III's discussion of the 
complex issues raised with respect to effective implementation of 
section 1033 and the section V questions intended to assist Bureau 
decisions concerning potential rulemaking.

I. Section 1033

    Section 1033 is comprised of five subsections. Section 1033(a) 
provides that, subject to rules prescribed by the Bureau, 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, including information relating to any transaction, 
series of transactions, or to the account including costs, charges and 
usage data.\1\ The information is to be made available in an electronic 
form usable by consumers. Section 1033(b) then outlines certain 
exceptions from these general access rights. For example, a covered 
person may not be required to make available to the consumer 
``confidential commercial information, including an algorithm used to 
derive credit scores or other risk scores or predictors'' and 
``information that the covered person cannot retrieve in the ordinary 
course of its business with respect to that information.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 1002 of the Dodd-Frank Act defines certain terms 
used in section 1033. Section 1002(4) defines a ``consumer'' as ``an 
individual or an agent, trustee, or representative acting on behalf 
of an individual.'' 12 U.S.C. 5481(4). Section 1002(5), by 
incorporation, provides a multi-part definition of ``consumer 
financial products or services.'' See 12 U.S.C. 5481(5). Finally, 
section 1002(6) defines ``covered persons,'' in part, as entities 
engaged in offering or providing consumer financial products or 
services. See 12 U.S.C. 5481(6).
    \2\ See 12 U.S.C. 5533(b)(1) and (4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 1033(c) establishes that section 1033 does not ``impose any 
duty on a covered person to maintain or keep any information about a 
consumer.'' \3\ Section 1033(d) states that ``[t]he Bureau, by rule, 
shall prescribe standards 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.'' \4\ Finally, section 1033(e) requires that the Bureau 
consult with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the 
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation, and the Federal Trade Commission to ensure, to 
the extent appropriate, that any rule pursuant to section 1033 imposes 
substantively similar requirements on covered persons, takes into 
account conditions under which covered persons do business both in the 
United States and in other countries, and does not require or promote 
the use of any particular technology in order to develop systems for 
compliance.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 12 U.S.C. 5533(c).
    \4\ 12 U.S.C. 5533(d).
    \5\ See 12 U.S.C. 5533(e). The Bureau works with other 
regulators on innovation matters through various means. For example, 
the Bureau and the OCC recently convened virtual innovation office 
hours so that participants would have an opportunity to discuss 
issues that touch upon both consumer protection and prudential 
regulation. See https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-occ-host-virtual-innovation-office-hours/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Definitions

    This ANPR relies upon several terms defined in the Dodd-Frank Act. 
For convenience, this ANPR also defines several additional terms. The 
non-statutorily defined terms in this ANPR are for purposes of this 
ANPR only and should not be understood to indicate any legal 
interpretation, legal guidance, or policy judgment by the Bureau. When 
specific questions in section V below depart from these definitions, 
that is specifically noted.
     ``Authorized data'' means data initially sourced from a 
data holder as a result of authorized data access.
     ``Authorized data access'' (or ``consumer-authorized data 
access'') means third-party access to consumer financial data pursuant 
to the relevant consumer's authorization.
     ``Authorized entities'' are entities or persons with 
authorized data access to particular consumer financial data.
     ``Consumer data access'' means authorized data access and 
direct access.
     ``Consumer financial data'' (or ``consumer data'') means 
``information in the control or possession of [a] covered person 
concerning a 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.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 12 U.S.C. 5533(a). For purposes of this ANPR, consumer data 
access involves data that relate to the accessing or authorizing of 
that consumer's use of a given product or service. As such, 
references to ``consumer data'' incorporate the idea of 
``information in the control of a covered person concerning a 
consumer financial product or service that [the applicable] consumer 
has obtained from such covered person.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ``Data aggregator'' (or ``aggregator'') means an entity 
that supports data users and/or data holders in enabling authorized 
data access.
     ``Data holder'' means a covered person with control or 
possession of consumer financial data.
     ``Data user'' means a third party that uses consumer-
authorized data access to provide either (1) products or services to 
the authorizing consumer or (2) services used by entities that provide 
products or services to the authorizing consumer.
     ``Direct access'' means direct access by the individual 
consumer to consumer data rather than by an authorized entity.

III. Background

A. Access to Consumer Financial Data

    Many providers of consumer financial products and services 
accumulate information concerning the consumers who use their products 
and services, the accounts that consumers maintain with them, and other 
information relating to consumers' use of such products and services. 
Providers of demand deposit accounts, for example, will accumulate 
information about the transactions made with a given account and about 
charges

[[Page 71005]]

assessed to the account. In many cases, there are well-established 
statutory and regulatory frameworks that impose requirements on 
providers of consumer financial products and services to disclose 
certain information to their customers about their accounts. Disclosure 
requirements may include, for example, periodic statements with account 
information on transactions and fees or disclosures about the 
collection, sharing, use, and protection of consumers' non-public 
personal information.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, e.g., Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.5(b)(2) and 1026.7(b) 
(implementing the Truth in Lending Act with respect to periodic 
statements for credit cards); Regulation E, 12 CFR 1005.9(b) 
(implementing the Electronic Fund Transfer Act with respect to 
periodic statements for traditional bank accounts and other consumer 
asset accounts); Regulation DD, 12 CFR 1030.6(a) (implementing the 
Truth in Saving Act with respect to periodic statements for deposit 
accounts held at depository institutions); Regulation P, 12 CFR 
1016.4 and 1016.5 (implementing the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act's privacy 
provisions). Further, on October 5, 2016, the Bureau issued a final 
rule amending Regulations E and Z for prepaid accounts. For prepaid 
accounts, the final rule provides an alternative to providing the 
periodic statement if a financial institution, among other things, 
makes an electronic history of a consumer's account transactions 
available to the consumer that covers at least 12 months preceding 
the date the consumer electronically accesses that account history. 
The requirement became effective on April 1, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, consumers wishing to access consumer data \8\ can 
often do so by interacting directly with their consumer financial 
service providers through providers' online servicing portals or mobile 
applications. Many providers of consumer financial products and 
services, from traditional providers like banks and credit unions to 
newer entrants such as online lenders, make available to consumers 
extensive electronic data about their use of the institution's products 
and services. Direct access of this kind is how many consumers now 
manage their main consumer financial accounts, like their checking 
accounts, credit card accounts, or mortgage loan accounts.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See supra note 6.
    \9\ See, e.g., Lauren Perez, Online Banking Spikes in Pandemic, 
With 91% of Americans Banking Virtually in July, DepositAccounts 
(Aug. 27, 2020), available at https://www.depositaccounts.com/blog/online-banking-spikes-amid-pandemic.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For some time, a range of companies--including traditional 
financial institutions and non-bank financial technology, or 
``fintech,'' firms--have been accessing consumer data with consumers' 
authorization and providing services to consumers using data from the 
consumers' various financial accounts. In recent years, the number and 
usage of products and services that utilize or rely upon consumers' 
ability to authorize third-party access to consumer data have grown 
substantially and rapidly.\10\ This growth in authorized data access 
has been accompanied by expansion in the number of distinct 
applications or ``use cases'' for authorized data, including, but not 
limited to, personal financial management; financial advisory services; 
assistance in shopping for and selecting new consumer financial 
products and services; making and receiving payments; assisting 
consumers with improving savings outcomes; identity verification and 
account ownership validation; credit profile improvement; and 
underwriting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., The Financial Data and Technology Association of 
North America, Competition Issues in Data-Driven Consumer and Small 
Business Financial Services (Jun. 2020) at 5-6, available at https://fdata.global/north-america/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2020/06/FDATA-US-Anticompetition-White-Paper-FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This type of consumer-authorized data access and use holds the 
promise of improved and innovative consumer financial products and 
services, enhanced control for consumers over their financial lives, 
and increased competition in the provision of financial services to 
consumers.\11\ Further, stakeholders assert that the increasing ability 
of consumers to authorize third-party access to consumer data can 
improve the quality and the consumer experience of consumer financial 
products and services, expand access and reduce costs related to using 
those products and services, and further consumer-friendly innovation 
and competition in consumer financial markets.\12\ At the same time, 
stakeholders have also noted that consumers still face certain 
potential risks if they authorize access to consumer data, including 
some risks relating to the methods by which they authorize such access 
and by which the records are collected and used by authorized 
entities.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Bureau of Consumer Fin. Prot., Consumer Protection 
Principles: Consumer-Authorized Financial Data Sharing and 
Aggregation (Oct. 18 2017) (2017 Principles) at 1, available at 
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_consumer-protection-principles_data-aggregation.pdf.
    \12\ See, e.g., Bureau of Consumer Fin. Prot., Consumer-
authorized financial data sharing and aggregation: Stakeholder 
insights that inform the Consumer Protection Principles (Oct. 18, 
2017) (Stakeholder Insights Report) at 4, available at https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_consumer-protection-principles_data-aggregation_stakeholder-insights.pdf.
    \13\ See, e.g., Bureau of Consumer Fin. Prot., Bureau Symposium: 
Consumer Access to Financial Records: A summary of the proceedings 
(Jul. 2020) (Symposium Summary Report) at 3-7, available at https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_bureau-symposium-consumer-access-financial-records_report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Authorized Data Access Ecosystem Participants

    In authorizing a third party to access consumer data, consumers 
engage in a broad and complex ecosystem that enables such access. In 
addition to consumers themselves, the main participants in that system 
are data holders, data users, and data aggregators. A given 
participant, however, may play more than one--or even all--of these 
roles.
    Data holders include providers of consumer financial products and 
services that, in the ordinary course of their business, collect, 
generate, or otherwise possess and retain information about consumers' 
use of their products and services. In theory, this category could 
include almost every type of provider of consumer financial products 
and services. In practice, however, activity in the authorized data 
access ecosystem to date has focused on banks, credit unions, and other 
providers of core transaction accounts (especially demand deposit 
accounts) in their role as data holders.\14\ This focus, however, has 
not been exclusive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Consumers may wish to authorize data users to access many 
more types of data held by many more types of entities. However, the 
Bureau is concerned in this ANPR only with consumer financial data 
held by providers of consumer financial products and services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Data users are providers of products and services who use 
authorized data access to inform or enable the delivery of their 
products and services. Non-bank fintech companies who offer consumer 
financial products and services are prominent data users; however, 
other companies, including banks, also can and do act as data users. As 
discussed below, data users may use authorized data to enable or seek 
to improve a wide and growing array of consumer financial products and 
services, including both those competing in longstanding consumer 
financial markets as well as innovative products and services in new 
markets.
    Although data users may access consumer data from data holders 
without the use of any intermediaries, the Bureau understands that 
currently most authorized data access is effected via data aggregators. 
These entities access and transmit consumer financial data to data 
users pursuant to consumer authorization. In some cases, they may also 
retain consumer data. Data aggregators are often ``fourth parties'' 
that support data users in procuring consumer authorization to access 
data, and in accessing such data, often support data holders in 
facilitating authorized third-party access to their

[[Page 71006]]

customers' data. To date, the market for data aggregation services has 
primarily focused on aggregators offering services to data user 
clients; \15\ however, as discussed in more detail below, this dynamic 
has been shifting in recent years towards data aggregators performing 
services for providers in the providers' capacity as data holders, as 
well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ As recently noted by the OCC, under such arrangements, 
``[a] data aggregator typically acts at the request of and on behalf 
of a bank's customer without the bank's involvement in the 
arrangement.'' Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, OCC 
Bulletin 2020-10: Third-Party Relationships: Frequently Asked 
Questions to Supplement OCC Bulletin 2013-29 (Mar. 5, 2020) (OCC 
Bulletin), available at https://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/bulletins/2020/bulletin-2020-10.html. This has been driven to a 
significant extent by the primary technical means by which consumer-
authorized data access has and continues to be effected; i.e., 
credential-based access and screen scraping. ``Credential-based 
access'' refers to authorized access that uses the consumer's user 
ID and password or like credentials to log into the data holder's 
online financial account management portal, generally on an 
automated basis. ``Screen scraping'' refers to authorized access 
that uses proprietary software to convert consumer data presented in 
the provider's online financial account management portal into 
standardized machine-readable data, again generally on an automated 
basis. Credential-based access and screen scraping often are 
described collectively as ``screen scraping.'' But while the two 
practices typically are linked, they are technically and 
conceptually distinct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Aggregators may play a larger role in the U.S. data access system 
than in certain other countries because of the relatively large number 
of bank and credit union data holders in the U.S. and the lack of 
controlling data standards. Given this multitude of consumer data 
sources, data users have turned to specialized intermediaries to enable 
access. In this way, such data users do not have to negotiate access 
with a large number of data holders with a wide range of data 
accessibility practices (or in the case of screen scraping, develop and 
maintain a distinct technical solution for every potential data 
holder), but instead can contract with one or a handful of aggregators 
that have already developed and maintain access with respect to many 
data holders.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See note 15 (defining ``screen scraping'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These three categories--data holder, data user, and data 
aggregator--are not mutually exclusive in theory or in practice. First, 
to the extent they collect, generate, or otherwise possess and retain 
information about their customers in the ordinary course of their 
business, both data users and data aggregators also may be data 
holders. For example, a fintech that offers, often on behalf of a 
depository institution partner, demand deposit accounts to consumers--
such fintechs are frequently referred to as ``neobanks''--may act as a 
data user if it obtains, pursuant to consumer authorization, consumer 
data about a consumer's accounts at other financial institutions to 
facilitate consumer-directed movement of funds between accounts. But 
that same neobank may also act as a data holder when one of its 
consumers authorizes a different financial institution to access 
consumer financial data at the neobank in connection with applying for 
a personal loan from that different financial institution. Second, data 
users may also function as data aggregators, whether they are providing 
aggregation services purely ``in-house'' in connection with their own 
consumer data-supported products and services or if they instead 
contract with other data users to provide aggregation services.

C. Competitive Dynamics and Evolving Modes of Authorized Data Access

    Authorized data access holds the potential to intensify competition 
and innovation in many, perhaps even most, consumer financial markets. 
Such intensification can take one of three main forms.
    First, authorized data access can enable improvements to existing 
products. For example, a mortgage lender can improve its products by 
using authorized data access to verify digitally an applicant's account 
assets. The consumer is spared the burden of assembling these data and 
may be able to proceed faster as a result. Additionally, the lender may 
have greater assurance of data accuracy and reliability.
    Second, authorized data access can foster competition for existing 
products, thereby broadening access, lowering prices, or both. For 
example, lenders may be able to use consumer data--like deposit account 
transaction history--to underwrite consumers who might otherwise face 
more costly credit terms, assuming that they can obtain credit at all. 
Or a lender might use near real-time account data to provide a consumer 
with short-term credit options that compete with checking account 
overdraft functionality and pricing.
    Finally, authorized data access can be used to offer new types of 
products and services. For example, a company may offer an automated 
personalized financial advice service that consolidates consumer data 
from across a consumer's various transaction accounts at multiple 
providers, a service which had only imperfect analogs prior to its 
development. Of course, many products and services that rely on 
authorized data access may encompass several or all of the three 
competitive dynamics.
    One notable aspect of the competition fostered by consumer-
authorized data access is that in many cases data users may compete for 
customers with the data holders from which they have obtained data. 
Sometimes this competition might be direct, as in the example above of 
a just-in-time lender competing with a bank offering overdraft 
coverage. Sometimes it might be less direct, as may occur if a bank's 
customers use a personal financial management application that 
recommends that some of those consumers shift their business to a 
competing provider.\17\ These competitive dynamics mean that data 
holders may have an incentive to restrict access by certain data users 
or to seek greater clarity about the purposes to which particular 
accessing parties may put accessed data. By the same token, data users 
may have incentives not to be forthcoming about such purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The intensity of competition may be further affected by the 
fact that data users may be data holders, as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of course, these competitive incentives may be outweighed by 
countervailing incentives. Data holders may have an incentive to 
provide consumers with the means to enable more secure and controlled 
authorized data access. Thus, data holders may face consumer demand to 
allow authorized data access. They also may find that working 
collaboratively with data users and data aggregators results in a form 
of authorized data access that is more secure or provides other 
benefits to data holders.\18\ Similarly, data users and aggregators 
have incentives to develop secure and reliable means of authorized data 
access, which may necessitate collaboration with data holders. For 
example, they may find that screen scraping is technically unreliable 
or challenging to maintain, compared to modes of authentication and 
access that require collaboration with data holders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Regulatory requirements may also impact incentives. The OCC 
notes that even when ``a bank is not receiving a direct service from 
a data aggregator and if there is no business arrangement, banks 
still have risk from sharing customer-permissioned data with a data 
aggregator. Bank management should perform due diligence to evaluate 
the business experience and reputation of the data aggregator to 
gain assurance that the data aggregator maintains controls to 
safeguard sensitive customer data.'' OCC Bulletin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These competitive dynamics appear to be reflected in evolving modes 
of authorized data access. To date, most consumer-authorized third 
parties have accessed consumer data through data holders' digital 
banking portal using

[[Page 71007]]

digital banking credentials the consumer shared with third parties. 
Such access generally requires no formal agreement between data holder 
and data user or data aggregator.\19\ More recently, however, the 
authorized data access ecosystem has seen the emergence of formal, 
bilateral access agreements between large aggregators and large data 
holders, which seek generally to move authorized access away from 
credential-based access and screen scraping towards tokenized access, 
commonly through application programming interfaces, or ``APIs.'' (When 
access is tokenized, a third party seeking access uses unique 
credentials that other parties cannot use; tokenized access is 
generally considered more secure than access that depends on using the 
consumer's own credentials.) In addition, a broad range of ecosystem 
participants have started to come together to develop standards for 
data sharing through APIs. Networks or consortia of data holders have 
begun to acquire or partner with data aggregators to offer access 
solutions to data holders as well as to their traditional data user 
clients. These moves may herald a broader move towards multilateral 
standards for data access, much as network standards function in two-
sided payment card markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See note 15. Such access can involve some degree of 
collaboration between data holders and third parties which are 
seeking access. For example, the Bureau understands that many large 
banks and aggregators engage in ``whitelisting.'' In this practice, 
the aggregator identifies its traffic to the bank, which allows the 
bank to permit the aggregator to access consumer data via 
credential-based access and screen scraping. Also see, e.g., John 
Pitts, OCC did its part to secure customer data. Now it's CFPB's 
turn. (Mar. 16, 2020), American Banker, available at https://www.americanbanker.com/opinion/occ-did-its-part-to-secure-customer-data-now-its-cfpbs-turn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is not clear, however, how these evolving access practices and 
standards will affect competition or innovation in markets in which 
participants use authorized data. It is also unclear how effectively 
they will address other consumer protection risks that may arise with 
authorized access, including risks relating to the methods by which 
consumer data is accessed and the purposes for which data users may use 
authorized data. Panelists at the Bureau's February 2020 ``Symposium on 
Consumer Access to Financial Records and Section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank 
Act'' (Symposium) identified significant progress on some of these 
issues and uncertainties by participants within the authorized data 
access ecosystem. However, they also made clear that participants have 
sometimes struggled to resolve issues in a manner satisfactory to all 
impacted parties, and according to some participants, in a manner 
commensurate with the access rights described in section 1033.\20\ 
Participants expressed a range of perspectives on issues relating to, 
among others, data security, consumer privacy, data minimization,\21\ 
consumer control and transparent use of consumer data, data accuracy, 
accountability and liability for errors and other problematic 
transactions, and the mechanisms by which consumer-permissioned parties 
access records.\22\ For example, Symposium panelists discussed whether 
and how data holders might respect rights described in section 1033 and 
also refuse access to an authorized third party for security reasons, 
such as alleged fraud or deficient security practices.\23\ Panelists 
similarly discussed consumer privacy risks arising from existing modes 
of authorized data access. Panelists proposed and discussed a variety 
of approaches and actions the Bureau might consider to address these 
kinds of issues.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The Symposium is described further below at Section IV.C. 
See also Symposium Summary Report.
    \21\ The principle of data minimization invokes the general 
notion that data users only request, and data holders only share, 
consumer data necessary to perform the service described to and 
authorized by the consumer. See Symposium Summary Report at 6.
    \22\ See, e.g., Symposium Summary Report at 3-9.
    \23\ See id. at 8.
    \24\ See id. at 4 & 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Other Laws

    There are other Federal laws with potential implications for 
consumer access to financial records pursuant to section 1033, 
particularly the authorized data access ecosystem.\25\ Although 
Symposium participants did not always agree on whether or how these 
laws apply in the area of authorized data access, there was general 
consensus that the Bureau might need to resolve potential stakeholder 
uncertainty with respect to application of the following laws and their 
implementing regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See id. at 6-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
    The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) and the Bureau's implementing 
regulation, Regulation P, require financial institutions to provide 
their customers with notices concerning their privacy policies and 
practices, among other things. They also place certain limitations on 
the disclosure of nonpublic personal information to nonaffiliated third 
parties, and on the redisclosure and reuse of such information.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act
    The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and its implementing 
regulation, Regulation V, govern the collection, assembly, and use of 
consumer report information and provide the framework for the credit 
reporting system in the United States. They also promote the accuracy, 
fairness, and privacy of information in the files of consumer reporting 
agencies.
The Electronic Fund Transfer Act
    The Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and its implementing 
regulation, Regulation E, establish a basic framework of the rights, 
liabilities, and responsibilities of participants in the electronic 
fund and remittance transfer systems. Among other requirements, EFTA 
and Regulation E prescribe requirements applicable to electronic fund 
transfers, including disclosures, error resolution, and rules related 
to unauthorized electronic fund transfers.

IV. Bureau Actions to Date

    The Bureau has not promulgated any regulations to implement section 
1033. The Bureau has, however, taken several actions in the interest of 
consumer access to financial records. The Bureau's approach has focused 
on identifying and promoting consumer interests in, among other areas, 
access, control, security, and privacy, while allowing the market to 
develop without direct regulatory intervention.

A. The 2016 RFI

    In 2016, the Bureau published in the Federal Register a Request for 
Information Regarding Consumer Access to Financial Information (2016 
RFI) on topics including authorized data access.\26\ The 2016 RFI 
described the authorized data access ecosystem as it existed then, as 
well as certain risks and issues related to that ecosystem.\27\ The 
questions in the 2016 RFI focused on ``current market practices'' and 
on ``how [commenters] believe market practices may or should change 
over time.'' \28\ In response, the Bureau received comments from a 
broad range of stakeholders, including large and small data holders, 
their trade associations, data aggregators, account data users, 
individual consumers, and consumer advocates. The Bureau collected 
further

[[Page 71008]]

insights, including from stakeholders, through meetings and oral 
discussions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See 81 FR 83806 (Nov. 22, 2016).
    \27\ See 81 FR 83808-83809 (Nov. 22, 2016).
    \28\ See 81 FR 83810 (Nov. 22, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The Bureau's 2017 Stakeholder Insights Report and Consumer 
Protection Principles

    In October 2017, the Bureau published two documents about consumer-
authorized data access. The first document, entitled ``Consumer-
authorized financial data sharing and aggregation: Stakeholder insights 
that inform the Consumer Protection Principles'' (Stakeholder Insights 
Report), summarized comments received in response to the 2016 RFI as 
well as insights gathered in meetings with market stakeholders.\29\ The 
second document, ``Consumer Protection Principles: Consumer-Authorized 
Financial Data Sharing and Aggregation'' (2017 Principles), expressed 
``the Bureau's vision for . . . a robust, safe, and workable data 
aggregation market that gives consumers protection, usefulness, and 
value.'' \30\ The 2017 Principles covered nine topics related to 
consumer-authorized access: Access; data scope and usability; control 
and informed consent; authorizing payments; security; access 
transparency; accuracy; ability to dispute and resolve unauthorized 
access; and efficient and effective accountability mechanisms.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Stakeholder Insights Report.
    \30\ 2017 Principles at 1.
    \31\ See 2017 Principles at 3-5. In publishing the 2017 
Principles, the Bureau noted that the 2017 Principles ``do not 
themselves establish binding requirements or obligations relevant to 
the Bureau's exercise of its rulemaking, supervisory, or enforcement 
authority.'' Id. at 2. The Bureau further observed ``that many 
consumer protections apply to this market under existing statutes 
and regulations. These Principles are not intended to alter, 
interpret, or otherwise provide guidance on--although they may 
accord with--the scope of those existing protections.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. The Bureau's 2020 Symposium

    Following release of the 2017 Principles, the Bureau continued to 
monitor developments concerning consumer-authorized data access. To 
that end, the Bureau held the Symposium in February 2020.\32\ Panelists 
at the Symposium represented large and small banks, data aggregators 
and their trade groups, fintechs, consumer advocates, and other market 
observers and researchers, and each made a written submission to the 
Bureau in advance of the Symposium.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Bureau of Consumer Fin. Prot., CFPB to Host Symposium 
on February 26 (Feb. 20, 2020), available at https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-hosts-symposium-february-2020/. This document also contains a list of Symposium 
panelists.
    \33\ For panelists' written submissions, see Bureau of Consumer 
Fin. Prot., CFPB Symposium: Consumer Access to Financial Records, 
available at https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/events/archive-past-events/cfpb-symposium-consumer-access-financial-records/. For a recording of the Symposium, see Bureau of Consumer 
Fin. Prot., CFPB Symposium: Consumer Access to Financial Records 
(Feb. 26, 2020), available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bQsdQ0462o.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a follow-up to the Symposium, the Bureau published three 
documents: first, a report summarizing Symposium proceedings; \34\ 
second, a blog post that offered consumers ``key information about how 
data sharing works, what [consumers] should consider before sharing 
[their] data, and some tips on how [consumers] can best protect [their] 
data and accounts'' \35\; and third, an announcement of the Bureau's 
intention to publish this ANPR.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Symposium Summary Report.
    \35\ Max Bentovim, What to consider when sharing your financial 
data (Jul. 24, 2020), available at https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/blog/what-to-consider-when-sharing-your-financial- data/.
    \36\ Bureau of Consumer Fin. Prot., CFPB Announces Plan to Issue 
ANPR on Consumer-Authorized Access to Financial Data (Jul. 24, 
2020), available at https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-anpr-consumer-authorized-access-financial-data/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Stakeholder Concerns Regarding the Consumer-Authorized Data Access 
Ecosystem

    The Bureau believes that ensuring consumer access to financial 
records, consistent with other consumer protections, is important to 
achieving the Bureau's statutory purpose and objectives. Specifically, 
the Bureau is charged with ``ensuring that consumers have access to 
markets for consumer financial products and services, and that [such 
markets] are fair, transparent, and competitive.'' \37\ Congress 
further instructed the Bureau to exercise its authorities so that 
``markets for consumer financial products and services operate 
transparently and efficiently to facilitate access and innovation.'' 
\38\ The Bureau believes that the consumer access to financial records 
provided in section 1033 is an important component of the overall 
consumer protection framework established by the Dodd-Frank Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 12 U.S.C. 5511(a).
    \38\ 12 U.S.C. 5511(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through these information gathering opportunities, stakeholders 
have raised a number of concerns about the current state and direction 
of the consumer-authorized data access ecosystem. First, some 
stakeholders contend that not all consumers are able to authorize 
access to consumer data in a manner commensurate with the access rights 
described in section 1033. For example, stakeholders report that 
certain data fields--including, potentially, ``costs, charges and usage 
data'' \39\--are sometimes withheld.\40\ Similarly, some stakeholders 
assert that data holders may be defining permitted ``use cases'' in 
ways that conflict with the access rights described in section 
1033.\41\ Although authorized data access ecosystem participants have 
moved towards data sharing standards that might help to resolve some of 
these issues, some stakeholders assert that those efforts will not, as 
a matter of course, fully effectuate the access rights described in 
section 1033.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 12 U.S.C. 5533(a).
    \40\ See, e.g., Symposium Summary Report at 3.
    \41\ See id. at 6.
    \42\ See, e.g., Symposium Summary Report at 4, 9; John Pitts, 
Panelist Written Submission to the Bureau's 2020 Symposium at 3-4, 
available at https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_pitts-statement_symposium-consumer-access-financial-records.pdf; Dan Murphy, Panelist Written Submission to the Bureau's 
2020 Symposium at 4, available at https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_murphy-statement_symposium-consumer-access-financial-records.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, stakeholder positions suggest that issues relating to 
access rights may not be fully resolvable without accompanying 
resolution of a series of interconnected issues, such as the security 
of authorized access to consumer data or how consumers should most 
appropriately exercise control over authorized access.\43\ Here, too, 
informal efforts by ecosystem participants have effected some 
improvements over time, but some stakeholders have asserted that Bureau 
regulatory involvement may be required to resolve some of these 
questions.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See id. at 6-7.
    \44\ See, e.g., Symposium Summary Report at 3, 5, 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, stakeholders have raised questions about the application of 
other consumer financial laws and regulations to consumer-authorized 
data access.\45\ For example, some Symposium panelists asserted that 
the law is unclear as to: (1) Which parties are liable for unauthorized 
access under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E, as well 
as under other provisions of law; (2) if and how the Fair Credit and 
Reporting Act applies to consumer data in the context of authorized 
data access; and (3) the manner in which the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and 
its implementing regulations regarding privacy and security apply to 
data aggregators.\46\ Some market stakeholders have alleged

[[Page 71009]]

that uncertainty, ambiguities, or irresolution relating to these kinds 
of questions may be impeding consumer data access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See id. at 7-8.
    \46\ See id. While the Bureau has certain authorities with 
regard to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley's privacy provisions, the Bureau 
has no supervisory, enforcement, or rulemaking authority with regard 
to the Act's data security provision, 15 U.S.C. 6801, or its 
implementing regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Topics on Which the Bureau Seeks Comment

    In light of the authorized data access ecosystem's evolution since 
section 1033 was enacted, the Bureau has determined to commence a 
process that ultimately could lead to regulations that clarify the 
Bureau's compliance expectations and help to establish market practices 
to ensure that consumers have access to consumer financial data. The 
Bureau is issuing this ANPR to solicit comments and information that 
will assist the Bureau in developing proposed regulations under section 
1033.
    The Bureau seeks comment from interested parties--including 
consumers, consumer advocacy groups, industry participants, and other 
members of the public--on any (or all) of a number of questions 
relating to potential rulemaking in connection with section 1033.\47\ 
These comments, together with other outreach and analysis, will help 
the Bureau to determine how it might formulate potential regulatory 
interventions to better effectuate consumer access to financial records 
as described in section 1033. Consumers have an interest in being able 
to secure data access as provided in section 1033 effectively and in a 
manner that enables ongoing and efficient consumer-friendly market 
innovation. In considering potential interventions, the Bureau will be 
mindful of avoiding undue or unnecessary burden on industry, 
particularly in light of self-regulatory standard-setting work that a 
broad group of market participants has conducted and continues to 
conduct and other initiatives that may help to foster a safe consumer-
authorized data sharing ecosystem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ When responding to a question, please note the question 
number at the top of the response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Bureau has grouped questions into nine categories: Costs and 
benefits of consumer data access; competitive incentives; standard-
setting; access scope; consumer control and privacy; other legal 
requirements; data security; data accuracy; and other information. For 
convenience, the questions (and this introduction) continue to use the 
defined terms from section II above, except when specifically 
noted.\48\ Questions should be understood as directed to practices and 
outcomes in the United States (except where specifically noted), but 
commenters may reference non-U.S. information if they believe that is 
helpful to illuminate or explain the relevance of their comment to 
potential regulatory action in the U.S. The Bureau requests that, 
wherever possible, commenters support their responses with information 
about market practices (both in the U.S. and elsewhere) and/or other 
empirical data and analysis. The Bureau further encourages commenters 
to include in their responses any relevant information regarding the 
potential costs and benefits of consumer data access to consumers and 
covered persons. Such information may be qualitative, quantitative, or 
both.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ As noted, section II's defined terms are for purposes of 
this ANPR and should not be understood to imply any legal 
interpretation, guidance, or policy judgment by the Bureau.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Benefits and Costs of Consumer Data Access

    1. What are the benefits to consumers from authorized data access? 
What are the benefits to consumers from direct access? What specific 
regulatory steps by the Bureau would enhance those impacts and how 
would they do so?
    2. How does authorized data access facilitate competition and 
innovation in the provision of consumer financial services? What are 
the impacts of direct access on such competition and innovation? What 
specific regulatory steps by the Bureau would enhance that impact and 
how would they do so?
    3. What costs to consumers flow from authorized data access? What 
costs result from direct access? What specific regulatory steps by the 
Bureau would reduce any such impacts and how would they do so?
    4. Are there ways in which authorized data access has limited (or 
may in the future limit) competition and innovation resulting in harms 
to consumers? Are there ways in which the development of the ecosystem 
for authorized data access has caused (or may in the future cause) 
consumer harm? Are there ways in which direct access has had or may 
have such impacts? What specific regulatory steps by the Bureau would 
reduce any such impacts and how would they do so?
    5. What should the Bureau learn about the costs and benefits of 
authorized data access from regulatory experience in State 
jurisdictions or in jurisdictions outside the United States? What 
should it learn from such sources with respect to direct access? How 
should this inform the Bureau's consideration of specific regulatory 
steps that it might take to implement section 1033?
    6. How do the costs and benefits to data holders of authorized data 
access vary across different covered persons, including community banks 
and credit unions, and how should these variances inform the Bureau's 
actions with respect to implementing section 1033? How do the costs and 
benefits to data holders of direct access vary across different covered 
persons and how should these variances inform the Bureau's actions with 
respect to implementing section 1033?

B. Competitive Incentives and Authorized Data Access

    7. What reasons are there to believe that competitive incentives 
will facilitate or undermine authorized data access? What responsive 
actions should the Bureau take and why?
    8. To what extent should the Bureau expect the overlap across data 
holders, data aggregators, and data users to impact competition and 
innovation favorably or unfavorably? How should the Bureau take account 
of such overlap in implementing section 1033?
    9. Should the Bureau expect access-related agreements between data 
holders and other participants in the authorized data access ecosystem 
to impact competition and innovation favorably or unfavorably? How 
should the Bureau take account of such impacts in implementing section 
1033?
    10. Should the Bureau expect data access ecosystem participants to 
develop and adopt multilateral rules applicable to authorized data 
access? How should the Bureau expect any such rules to impact 
competition and innovation and how should the Bureau take account of 
any such impacts in implementing section 1033?
    11. Do customers of smaller data holders receive the same benefits 
from competition and innovation enabled by authorized data access as do 
customers of larger data holders? If not, why is that the case? How 
should any variance inform the Bureau's actions with respect to the 
implementation of section 1033?
    12. Do consumers' individual decisions to authorize data access 
entail significant negative or positive externalities on other 
consumers, data holders, data aggregators or data users? \49\ If so, 
what are those externalities and what impact do they have on 
competition, innovation, and the benefits, costs, and risks faced by 
consumers? How should such externalities inform the Bureau's actions 
with respect to the implementation of section 1033?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ An externality is a direct effect on the well-being of a 
consumer from the actions of other consumers.

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

[[Page 71010]]

C. Standard-Setting

    13. To what extent should the Bureau expect broad-based standard-
setting work by authorized data access ecosystem participants to enable 
and facilitate authorized data access? What favorable or unfavorable 
impacts to competition and innovation should the Bureau anticipate from 
such work? How should implementation of section 1033 access rights take 
account of such broad-based standard-setting by system participants?
    14. Should the Bureau seek to encourage broad-based standard 
setting work by authorized data access ecosystem participants? If so, 
how should it do so?
    15. What steps should the Bureau take to prescribe standards 
applicable to covered persons to promote the development and use of 
standardized formats for information that can be obtained by means of 
section 1033 data access rights? What form should such standards take? 
Should these standards differ depending on whether data is accessed 
directly by the consumer or through an authorized entity?
    16. What steps, if any, should the Bureau take to promote 
particular mechanisms of authorized data access? If some mechanisms are 
more beneficial (or as beneficial but at lower cost to consumers), what 
are the obstacles to further adoption of such mechanisms, and what 
steps should the Bureau take to mitigate such obstacles?

D. Access Scope

    17. The Dodd-Frank Act defines ``consumer'' as ``an individual or 
an agent, trustee, or representative acting on behalf of an 
individual.'' \50\ Who should be considered ``an agent, trustee, or 
representative'' of an individual consumer for purposes of implementing 
section 1033 access rights? Should any exclusions apply? If so, what 
exclusions and why?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See 12 U.S.C. 5481(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. Are there types of data holders that should not be subject to 
the access rights in section 1033? If so, why? Are there any unique 
issues for any types of data holders that the Bureau should consider in 
implementing the access rights provided in section 1033, and if so, how 
should the Bureau account for such issues?
    19. How might the Bureau protect against the exposure of 
confidential commercial information, information that must be kept 
confidential by law, or information collected for the purpose of 
preventing fraud or other illegal conduct while at the same time 
protecting the access rights provided in section 1033? Should the 
Bureau's approach differ depending on whether data is accessed by 
authorized third parties or directly?
    20. Apart from any restrictions identified in response to the 
preceding question, are there data elements to which section 1033 
access rights should not apply? If so, which elements and for what 
reasons? Should any restrictions on access to data elements differ 
depending on whether data is accessed by authorized third parties or 
directly?
    21. What information should be considered information that cannot 
be retrieved in the ordinary course of business? How should a Bureau 
rule seeking to implement the access rights provided in section 1033 
account for such information? Should any such accounting differ 
depending on whether data is accessed by authorized third parties or 
directly by consumers?
    22. Aside from any restrictions identified in response to earlier 
questions in this section, should any other restrictions on data access 
be permitted? For example, should a data holder be permitted to 
restrict authorized access to consumer data created during, or relating 
to, certain time periods? Should a data holder be permitted to restrict 
the frequency with which data can be accessed? If such restrictions 
should be permitted, how and why should they be permitted? Should any 
of these restrictions differ depending on whether data is accessed by 
authorized third parties or directly? Should any of these restrictions 
differ based on the purpose for which data is accessed?
    23. Should the Bureau propose to address the operational 
reliability of authorized data access, and if so, how and why? Should 
the Bureau consider any different ways to address the operational 
reliability of direct access, and if so, how and why?
    24. How should the Bureau ensure that any implementation of section 
1033 access rights does not promote or require the use of particular 
access (or other) technologies?

E. Consumer Control and Privacy

    With respect to questions in this section, the Bureau encourages 
commenters to identify, where applicable, the extent to which their 
responses may differ between primary and secondary uses of authorized 
data, where primary use reflects the primary purpose for which a 
consumer, acting pursuant to reasonable expectations, would choose to 
authorize access to consumer data, and secondary use reflects all other 
purposes for which authorized data may be used. With respect to 
secondary uses of authorized data, the Bureau encourages commenters to 
consider and explain whether their responses differ depending on 
whether the consumer data remain identifiably associated with the 
authorizing individual as well as if and how such data may be 
disassociated. The Bureau also encouragers commenters responding to 
this section to identify, where applicable, the extent to which their 
responses may differ between uses of authorized data for the purposes 
of effecting payments on behalf of consumers and other uses.
    25. To what extent does direct access to consumer data pursuant to 
section 1033 raise any privacy concerns that should be considered by 
the Bureau?
    26. In what respects do consumers understand the actual movement, 
use, storage, and persistence of authorized data? To what extent do 
such movement, use, storage, and persistence of authorized data align 
with reasonable consumer expectations or preferences, including privacy 
expectations or preferences? What should the Bureau do, if anything, to 
improve consumer understanding or to effect closer alignment between 
practice and consumer expectations or preferences? Should the Bureau 
consider placing any restrictions on the movement, use, storage and 
persistence of authorized data, and if so, what restrictions and why?
    27. To what extent are consumer understanding and expectations 
informed by the disclosed terms and conditions of authorized data 
access or other disclosures? What should the Bureau do, if anything, to 
improve consumer understanding of disclosed terms and conditions or to 
improve alignment between such terms and conditions and consumer 
expectations and/or preferences? Should the Bureau consider requiring 
any specific disclosures in connection with authorized access? If so, 
please describe the form, content, and other features of such 
disclosures.
    28. What tools can market participants provide consumers to align 
consumer expectations and preferences with the actual movement, use, 
storage, and persistence of authorized data, and what steps, if any, 
should the Bureau take to improve the effectiveness of such tools?
    29. What steps, if any, should the Bureau take to address 
authorized entities combining authorized data with data from other 
sources? What are the costs, benefits, and risks to consumers from such 
combining, and how are

[[Page 71011]]

those costs, benefits, and risks disclosed to consumers? Should the 
Bureau address such disclosure, and if so, how and why?
    30. Should the Bureau propose to address any of the following, and 
if so, how and why: (i) Data aggregators providing authorized data to 
entities other than in connection with the primary purpose or purposes 
for which the consumer authorized data access; or (ii) data aggregators 
retaining consumer data other than in connection with the primary 
purpose or purposes for which the consumer authorized access?
    31. Should the Bureau propose to address any of the following, and 
if so, how and why: (i) Data users providing authorized data to 
entities other than in connection with the primary purpose or purposes 
for which the consumer authorized data access; or (ii) data users 
retaining consumer data other than in connection with the primary 
purpose or purposes for which the consumer authorized data access?
    32. How, if at all, should a Bureau rule implementing section 1033 
seek to limit authorized access to the minimum amount of consumer data 
necessary to effect the purpose of authorizing access as reasonably 
understood by the authorizing consumer? What are the benefits and risks 
to consumers, to competition, and to innovation in consumer financial 
services of such steps? What are the benefits and risks to consumers, 
to competition, and to innovation if such steps are not taken?

F. Legal Requirements Other Than Section 1033

    Some questions in this section refer to ``regulatory uncertainty.'' 
As used in this section, that term refers to potential stakeholder 
uncertainty about provisions of law other than section 1033, including 
potential uncertainty that may arise because of the potential 
interaction or overlap between these other provisions and section 1033.
    33. How, if at all, are data holders subject to laws or regulations 
(whether Federal, State, or foreign) that may be in tension with any 
proposed obligation to make consumer data accessible per section 1033? 
How, if at all, should the Bureau address such potential tension?
    34. To the extent not addressed in your response to the preceding 
question, is regulatory uncertainty impeding consumer data access, 
undermining competition or innovation in the provision of consumer 
financial services, or otherwise impacting benefits or contributing to 
risks that consumers might derive from authorized access? If so, in 
what ways? Which legal provisions are the source of any such 
uncertainty, and what steps, if any, should the Bureau take to resolve 
any such uncertainty to the benefit of consumers?
    35. In what ways, if any, is regulatory uncertainty around consumer 
data access imposing costs on consumers, data holders, data users, or 
data aggregators? Which legal provisions are the source of any such 
costs, and what steps, if any, should the Bureau take to address any 
such uncertainty or to mitigate any such costs?
    36. What foreign, Federal, or State laws or regulations impose 
requirements or grant rights that are substantively similar to section 
1033? How should the Bureau take into consideration these substantively 
similar requirements in implementing section 1033? How should the 
Bureau take account of the conditions under which covered persons do 
business in the United States and in other countries?
    37. To the extent not already addressed above, what actions, if 
any, should the Bureau take to modify or clarify existing rules that 
have (or could have) application to consumer data access? What goals 
would such modification or clarification serve? What costs would they 
impose or reduce?

G. Data Security

    38. How effectively does existing law that bears on data security 
mitigate data security risks associated with data access and, in 
particular, authorized data access? What steps, if any, should the 
Bureau take to improve the effectiveness of existing laws that bear on 
data security in the context of data access?
    39. Do data holders, data users, and data aggregators have adequate 
market incentives to ensure that consumer data is secure? To what 
extent have they acted on the basis of any such incentives to this 
point or should be expected to so act going forward?
    40. If the Bureau proposes a rule to protect the access rights 
described in section 1033, how should that rule take appropriate 
account of data security concerns?

H. Data Accuracy

    41. To what extent are consumers harmed, or the benefits to 
consumers of data access endangered or otherwise restricted, by the 
risk of inaccurate consumer data being provided to consumers or data 
users? If such harms or restrictions arise, does their extent vary by 
the type of use to which data is put? If so, why is that the case?
    42. Are there risks that some data holders may not have adequate 
market incentives or legal requirements to ensure that the consumer 
data they provide to consumers or authorized third parties is accurate 
and that they correct inaccuracies when they occur?
    43. What risks of data inaccuracy are introduced as a result of the 
data access ecosystem? Do data users and data aggregators have adequate 
market incentives or legal requirements to ensure that the consumer 
data they use is accurate or sufficiently accurate for the purposes to 
which it is put? If your answer varies by the type of use to which 
consumer data is put, please explain why that is the case. How can data 
users and data aggregators act on such incentives, to the extent that 
they exist? To what extent have they so acted to this point or should 
be expected to so act going forward?
    44. What steps, if any, should the Bureau take to address the 
accuracy of consumer data that as a result of authorized data access is 
in the control or possession of data aggregators or data users?
    45. How effectively does existing law mitigate the risks that 
inaccurate consumer data is associated with direct access and 
authorized data access?

I. Other Information

    46. Is there any other information that would help inform the 
Bureau as it considers whether to initiate a rulemaking and how best to 
implement the consumer data access rights provided by section 1033?

VI. Signing Authority

    The Director of the Bureau, having reviewed and approved this 
document, is delegating the authority to electronically sign this 
document to Laura Galban, a Bureau Federal Register Liaison, for 
purposes of publication in the Federal Register.

    Dated: October 22, 2020.
Laura Galban,
Federal Register Liaison, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
[FR Doc. 2020-23723 Filed 11-5-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P