The long-running debate over “who should pay” for Open Banking has re-emerged, reignited by a series of developments in the US that could reshape the economics of data access.
JPMorgan Chase made headlines in July when it announced plans to charge open banking intermediaries — including Plaid, Akoya, Mastercard, and MX — for access to its account data through APIs.
The bank argued that the growing cost of maintaining and scaling these connections warranted compensation.
By late August, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) had also stepped into the conversation, confirming that it would explore cost recovery mechanisms as part of its consultation on revisions to the Personal Financial Data Rights (PFDR) rule.
The following weeks saw JPMorgan and Plaid reach a landmark agreement on a fee structure, effectively putting a price on one of open banking’s central tenets — data access.
At first glance, the logic of charging for API access seems straightforward: if banks incur costs in providing the infrastructure, then fees should follow.
Yet, this seemingly rational step hides deeper strategic risks. As the sector weighs potential monetisation models, banks would do well to proceed with caution for three key reasons.
1. Customers — not fintechs — drive API demand
Open Banking APIs are, at their core, a channel through which customers engage with their banks. The surge in API calls reflects consumers’ desire to share financial data with third-party services, not a speculative rush from fintechs. Framing Open Banking purely as a business-to-business service risks overlooking this customer dynamic.
Pricing models that make data sharing more difficult or expensive could degrade user experience, erode trust, and ultimately drive attrition. If consumers find their favourite finance app no longer syncs properly with their bank, frustration will likely be directed at the bank itself — undermining customer satisfaction and loyalty far more than any fee revenue can offset.
2. High fees could revive risky workarounds
Excessive pricing risks pushing the industry back toward screen scraping — the very practice open banking sought to replace. APIs were designed to offer security, reliability, and transparency. If fintechs find the costs of compliant API access prohibitive, the incentive to revert to less secure alternatives reappears. This would not only heighten operational and cybersecurity risks but could also increase costs elsewhere in the bank’s digital infrastructure.
3. AI-driven agents will depend on open APIs
Looking ahead, the emergence of agentic AI — autonomous digital assistants capable of managing users’ finances — will depend on Open Banking connectivity. APIs are the foundation upon which these next-generation, data-driven customer interactions will be built. Restricting access now risks limiting banks’ own ability to compete in an agent-enabled financial ecosystem.
As with mobile banking two decades ago, the temptation to monetise a new channel is understandable — but short-sighted.
Open Banking has become too integral to digital engagement and innovation to be treated merely as a revenue stream. The real value lies not in charging for access, but in what that access enables.
The post Banks must tread carefully charging for Open Banking access appeared first on Payments Cards & Mobile.
