Congress passed an explicit law saying financial companies have to offer the ability outlined in this rule. They state the CFPB needs to make rules to enable it and now they are doing so.
This entirely fits within the current Supreme Court doctrine around regulatory agencies.
Now, that’s not to say there might not be some other constitutional objection the the law itself…
> Congress passed an explicit law saying financial companies have to offer the ability outlined in this rule. They state the CFPB needs to make rules to enable it and now they are doing so.
Actually it didn't. S1033 of the CFPA states a financial institution will upon request of a consumer provide covered information about their financial accounts in a digital format usable by consumers. The rule relies on an expansive interpretation of the statutory definition of "consumer", which is a natural person or "an agent, trustee, or representative" thereof. The agency asserts that representative can be any third party and off of this says banks have to make a developer interface available for them to access, that ironically it does not mandate actual consumers, i.e. natural persons like you and I, can access.
This expansive interpretation will not survive judicial review. The canons of statutory interpretation do not allow it, e.g. agent and trustee are fiduciary relationships, as they are mentioned before "representative" it limits the potential scope to other types of fiduciary relationship (ejusdem generis and noscitur a sociis). A fintech is not a fiduciary and has no obligation to act in your interest. It's a typical arms-length commercial transaction.
Whether or not the agency's goal is noble is besides the point. It has plainly and obviously gone way beyond the statutory authority granted to it by Congress.
Thank you for the additional information. I should be more careful when wading into legal topics. I read section 1033 and I am not sure I agree that the final rule is destined to failure but I am definitely not a lawyer.
