Plaid's Brian Dammeir talks future of open banking
This story was originally published on Banking Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Banking Dive newsletter.
It's no secret that the future of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is uncertain – and with that, so is its guidance.
That includes its long-awaited final rule on open banking, which was announced in October and finalized in the last days of the Biden administration.
That rule, under Section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Act, requires financial institutions, credit card issuers and other firms to transfer personal financial data to other providers for free at the consumer's request, thus providing consumers with more control over their financial data.
That connectivity has been something Plaid has spearheaded – and to discuss the financial industry's progress toward handing the reins over to consumers, Banking Dive sat down with Brian Dammeir, the firm's head of payments and financial management.
Plaid's mission, per its website, is to 'unlock financial freedom for everyone by democratizing financial services through technology' – and 12 years into existence, its platform connects more than 12,000 financial institutions to the 8,000 fintechs built on top of Plaid.
Editor's note: This interview was edited for brevity and clarity.
BRIAN DAMMEIR: You can really see that as a dimension of coverage and quality. I think we're starting to get to a critical mass in terms of coverage, [meaning] if I am a consumer, and I go through an open finance or an open banking flow, will I be able to – in the case of payments at least – connect to my account? We're at that stage now where, because of the work we've done for a decade-plus and all the institutions we cover, more often than not the consumer is going to be able to connect that account.
Now we're on a journey in the industry addressing the overall quality of that user experience – making it a seamless authentication experience and making it something that is as easy as possible while remaining secure for that consumer.
There's almost a misnomer that the job's done. I think we're at Phase One when it comes to that base level connectivity, and now it's really about the user experience as they're going through that connectivity journey.
It's important to just take a step back and see the trendline that open banking has been on, even outside of Section 1033 and the CFPB. It was industry- and market-led for a very long time.
I think that trend line will continue, because it is win-win, right? Consumers want it. Brands want it. Banks understand the power of it for multiple use cases.
We could sit here and try to abstract out exactly what's going to happen over the next year or two. I think if anything changes, it's timelines. But it's not the trend line.
The advantage of anything that's industry- or market-led is that it's oriented around use cases that are very real, like 'what do consumers want? What apps are developers trying to create, and what user experiences are banks expecting and trying to create amongst their consumers?'
What regulatory guidance provides for is consistency, usually because it's a centralized entity that will say, 'here's the standards we're trying to set across the board.' Ultimately, consumers do want consistency, especially when you're talking about something like open banking, which is about a trusted experience.
I think I have to make a lot of assumptions to answer that question. What I will say is that there's enough win-win-win across the ecosystem that everybody wants open finance to be a thing. There's still the intrinsic drive towards open finance, regardless of regulatory context, and I think that's important to note.
That's usually a question of, 'what is their stack that they're on? What set of partners do they use, and where in the set of priorities is this against other things?' There's the beginning of a regulatory dynamic that is encouraging continued open finance and open banking adoption. Of course, those smaller institutions have much longer timelines in those regulations.
Ultimately, if everybody just sees [the CFPB open banking rule] as a regulatory mandate, it's not going to be a very good experience. Most of these banks understand that their consumer wants to be able to do this. They want to be able to connect to [fintech apps]. It's about where it fits in their priorities, and that's why we focus on having turnkey solutions with their partners, so that when they are ready to turn it on, they can turn it on.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
E&E News
38 minutes ago
- E&E News
Zeldin says he's saving industry. EPA documents tell a different story.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said his efforts this week to repeal climate and mercury rules would prevent fossil fuel industries from vanishing. 'Regulate them out of existence,' is how he described the intent of the Biden- and Obama-era rules on power plants. But EPA's own analysis that accompanied Zeldin's proposal, released Wednesday, showed that the rules he is targeting for repeal would have changed the U.S. energy sector very little. For that reason, the agency's so-called regulatory impact analysis — or RIA, which breaks down the costs and benefits of its actions — projected that the climate rules by the previous presidents would impose modest costs on the electricity sector. In one case, it was nonexistent. Advertisement The environmental benefits of the rules, though limited, substantially outstripped their costs to either the power sector or the economy, EPA's analysis showed. That's despite the fact that the agency didn't analyze the likely financial benefits of cutting carbon pollution from power plants under the 2024 rule finalized under former President Joe Biden — or, by extension, the costs of carbon increasing under Zeldin's plan. EPA states in its RIA for the draft repeal that it did no new modeling or analysis on the effects of repealing the carbon rule. Nor did it analyze the impacts of erasing it. Instead, the regulatory analysis draws virtually all of its figures and projections from the analysis for the 2024 Biden rule it's designed to kill. '[W]e rely on the 2024 [Carbon Pollution Standard] RIA policy case analysis as the baseline for this action. Similarly, there may be other regulatory changes before the promulgation of this proposed action, and these too are not accounted for in the baseline for this action,' said the RIA released by the agency Wednesday. Alan Krupnick, a senior fellow with Resources for the Future, noted that Zeldin's regulatory analysis 'merely takes the original RIA for [the Biden climate rule] — which was very thoroughly done — and multiplies those numbers by minus one.' EPA did not respond to requests for comment. Krupnick notes that the career staffers who compiled the analysis for the repeal probably didn't have time to run models. EPA sent the proposed repeals to the White House for review in May, just over three months after the start of President Donald Trump's second term. Under Biden, EPA analyzed how the 2024 rule requiring existing coal plants and new gas plants to reduce their climate pollution would work with other regulations and incentives to shape the grid. The analysis showed that the Inflation Reduction Act's tax credits for wind, solar and other technologies would drive the green energy build-out and deliver the carbon cuts that would nudge the power sector closer to Biden's climate goals. The climate and mercury rules would play a meaningful but supporting role, the Biden analysis showed, by ushering out aging coal-fired units and spurring a few fossil power plants to invest in carbon capture and storage systems. And because Zeldin's repeal uses the Biden climate rule's numbers and projections, its results are the mirror image of last year's IRA. For example, the repeal proposal touts $19 billion in saved regulatory costs over two decades from jettisoning the standards, or about $1.2 billion per year. A number taken from the 2024 document that reflects a relatively small percentage of the overall investments that utilities put toward their coal and gas fleets, not the kind of seismic shift to the economy that Zeldin described. The draft repeal acknowledges that the Obama-era standards for new coal, which it called 'largely non-binding,' has had no impact on costs because no new coal units have been built. 'The relative economics of coal-fired generation have remained challenging, as evidenced by continued retirement,' it states. It acknowledges that between market forces and IRA tax credits the same kinds of new power plants would likely have been built between now and the start of 2032, when the Biden rule's tougher standards would have phased in, whether that rule was repealed or not. The Biden rule would have cut power sector carbon emissions by 123 million metrics tons by 2035 — roughly the annual emissions of the Netherlands. And without the rule, the expectation now is that those tons will go into the atmosphere. Ben King, associate director of the energy and climate program at Rhodium Group, said his analysis showed that the Biden climate rule would have had a slightly larger impact on investment decisions and emissions than EPA's modeling projected. 'But it was in the same ballpark,' he said. 'Not transformative to the power system, but a step in the right direction.' But King noted 'the EPA rule and the IRA tax credits reinforce each other.' The Biden EPA's analysis showed few costs because most of the utility sector investments that would be required for compliance were already projected to happen because of the 2022 law, which invested $369 billion in those technologies. Now, Republicans in Congress are working to deliver a budget package that would greatly reduce those incentives. So EPA's analysis for its final carbon rule repeal — which is expected later this year — will likely show more savings on compliance, but also vastly more emissions tied to the loss of the Biden rule. Brendan Pierpont, director of electricity modeling at Energy Innovation, said the repeal of EPA's carbon and mercury standards and a loss of the IRA tax credits would result in higher electricity prices and more health-harming pollution from aging coal plants. 'Health damages from repealing the rule are going to be substantially more than what's represented in this because they're, again, drawing on the last year's analysis that incorporated the IRA tax credits,' he said. Right now, EPA projects that by 2035 the loss of the Biden rule would result in up to $17 billion in public health costs and premature deaths compared to what would have happened if the rule had remained in place. Those impacts are all tied to particulate pollution and smog. EPA opted not to monetize the impacts from changes in carbon or mercury pollution with or without the rule, even though those are accounted for in the IRA. Excess death estimates are reached by surveying people about their willingness to pay for policies that reduce their chances of dying. The metric is called 'value of statistical life.' But while EPA listed those figures in lower sections of the RIA for the draft repeal, the numbers were included as net benefits in the document's executive summary. Those benefits are limited to 'regulated pollutants' and savings to industry — a departure from EPA's historic practice of counting benefits when the rule helps reduce other pollutants. Krupnick called it a 'catch-22″ because he said EPA is choosing not to monetize carbon pollution in the analysis. The agency also did not count other pollution increases toward the net costs of the repeal because they aren't the pollutants the repeal is targeting, he said. 'EPA, their job is to protect and improve public health by reducing pollution,' Krupnick said. 'And you don't get to not count these [fine particulate pollution] and ozone benefits that are associated with reducing reliance on coal, you don't get to ignore that. It's completely antithetical to EPA's mission.'
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Why are administrative judges trying to help China steal American technology?
A panel of judges is openly defying Trump administration policy — and effectively allowing a Chinese firm to keep stealing an American semiconductor technology used in everything from self-driving cars to satellites. These judges are not members of the judicial branch. They are executive branch employees, and the Trump administration has the authority to overrule their dangerous decision. It should do so immediately to protect American workers and uphold the rule of law. But the administration will also need to implement broader reforms — and work with Congress to codify them — to prevent rogue administrative judges from helping Chinese companies pilfer U.S. intellectual property in the future. The administrative patent judges in question work for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, a powerful part of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. They just sided with Innoscience, a Chinese firm locked in a years-long legal battle with Efficient Power Conversion, a California-based semiconductor innovator. Efficient Power Conversion accused the Chinese firm of stealing its patented technology and selling knockoff chips. It took its case to the U.S. International Trade Commission, which investigates trade violations and protects American industries from unfair competition. After a 16-month investigation — including a trial, depositions, and expert testimony — the commission found that Innoscience had indeed stolen the technology and that Efficient Power Conversion's patent was valid. As a result, the commission barred the Chinese firm from selling the infringing chips in the U.S. And after its mandatory review period, the White House allowed the ruling to stand. That should have settled the matter. But separately, Innoscience challenged Efficient Power Conversion's patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which ultimately invalidated key claims in the patent. This ruling handed Innoscience fresh ammunition to challenge the import ban and try to resume flooding the U.S. market with stolen technology. This is a direct assault on American innovation and the Trump administration's efforts to crack down on Chinese intellectual property theft. Worse still, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board should never have taken the case. The first Trump administration issued guidance barring the Patent Trial and Appeal Board from reviewing patents already being litigated in parallel forums. This policy was designed to protect smaller American companies from being overwhelmed by duplicative litigation across multiple venues. Put simply, patent disputes should be handled in court, or at the International Trade Commission, or at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board — but not all three. That changed in 2022 when the Biden administration reversed the policy. This gave Innoscience an opening to request a Patent Trial and Appeal Board review in 2023. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board accepted — and in 2024, proceeded with a review of Efficient Power Conversion's patent, even though the International Trade Commission had already completed its exhaustive trial and was days away from issuing its final decision. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board, applying lower evidentiary standards than a court, invalidated the patent. It issued its ruling on March 18, 2025 — weeks after the second Trump administration had reversed Biden's policy and reinstated the original rules, which on its own should have blocked the Patent Trial and Appeal Board from acting. The director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office can reverse this decision. That should happen immediately. Overturning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board 's ruling would align with the commission and block the theft of a vital American technology. But righting this one wrong isn't enough. The system that allowed this must be reformed to prevent future abuses. That means putting the new Patent Trial and Appeal Board guidance through the formal rulemaking process, thus making it harder for a future administration to reverse it arbitrarily. Even more important: Congress must act. Bipartisan legislation like the PREVAIL Act would bar duplicative Patent Trial and Appeal Board challenges and hold it to the same evidentiary standards as federal courts. As a member of the Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, I know how important it is to protect our innovation from theft by our most determined adversary. Passing this law would reaffirm America's commitment to its inventors, send a clear message to China, and stop unelected bureaucrats from hijacking trade enforcement. America's economic security depends on innovation. We can't afford to let the Chinese Communist Party and other foreign adversaries sabotage our innovators. Nathaniel Moran represents the 1st District of Texas and is a member of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Factory jobs aren't the future working Americans want
Undaunted by his predecessor's failure to spark a manufacturing renaissance, President Trump also dreams of reindustrializing America. He won't succeed either, because no president has the power to undo a half-century of post-industrial evolution. Why have our two oldest presidents fixated on 'bringing back' factory jobs? Both grew up in the '50s, when the United States bestrode a war-ravaged world like an industrial colossus. But the answer isn't just nostalgia for a lost 'golden age.' There's also a pervasive feeling that our country owes a promissory note to working families hit hard by deindustrialization. The disappearance of manufacturing jobs with decent pay and benefits — traditionally their ticket from high school to the middle class — has undermined their living standards and social standing. Since 1971, the share of Americans who live in lower-income households has increased, reports the Pew Research Center: 'Notably, the increase in the share who are upper income was greater than the increase in the share who are lower income. In that sense, these changes are also a sign of economic progress overall.' The emergence of a highly educated upper middle class, however, is scant consolation to economically insecure working families. This divergence in the economic prospects of college and non-college workers is at the root of today's working-class revolt against political elites here and across Europe. Populists insist that the cure for economic inequality is more factory jobs. But is this really what working Americans want? Urged on by progressives, President Biden spent trillions to rebuild the economy 'from the middle out,' shelved trade in favor of tariffs and industrial policy, and tried to break up Big Tech companies that have supplanted yesterday's industrial giants. Yet Bidenomics delivered only marginal net gains in production jobs. President Trump thinks he can do better by taxing imports so much that manufacturers will be forced to locate production here lest they lose access to America's huge consumer market. Both approaches gloss over the fact that the U.S. still has a healthy manufacturing sector — in 2023, it was the world's second largest after China in terms of output. What's changed is that productivity gains and automation have combined to shrink factory employment. Since 1980, the share of U.S. workers in manufacturing has steadily declined to just over 8 percent. This trend away from labor-intensive production won't be reversed. The only way a high-wage country like ours can stay competitive in manufacturing is to make our factories more efficient. Meanwhile, nearly 80 percent of Americans make their living in service-oriented jobs. The Economist notes that the manufacturing wage premium is falling, and there are lots of jobs with decent pay available to workers without degrees in skilled trades, repair and maintenance, health care and tech-related fields. The digital economy, especially, has become a prodigious source of good jobs and careers for workers on either side of the diploma divide. A new analysis by my Progressive Policy Institute colleague Michael Mandel finds that, since 2019, employment in the tech/info/ecommerce sector — which encompasses broadband, cloud computing, software and data centers as well as online retail — has risen by 18 percent, compared to a 4 percent gain in the rest of the private sector. The average weekly pay is 47 percent higher than in other private sector jobs. Given these shifts in the locus of opportunity for working Americans, Trump's inflationary tariffs make no economic sense. They're best understood as reparations for past economic injuries suffered by his blue-collar base. Yet non-college Americans don't seem eager to return to assembly-line work. Asked in a PPI poll where in today's economy they see the best career opportunities for their children, only 13 percent picked manufacturing, while 44 percent chose 'the communications/digital economy, such as writing code, managing data or e-commerce.' Democrats should leave the smokestack reveries to Trump and the populist left and offer frustrated working families something different: A positive vision for how they can flourish in post-industrial America. Their top economic priority is getting the cost of living down. Perversely, Trump's tariffs do just the opposite. Democrats should offer full-throated opposition to protectionism and work to dismantle tariffs on U.S. friends and allies. They should also get out of their defensive crouch on trade. In a supreme irony, Trump's trade wars are making Americans free traders again. Not only are his tariffs unpopular, but voters now overwhelmingly say that trade improves their quality of life. Putting working families first also means cutting regressive taxes on work, fighting exclusionary zoning that drives housing prices out of reach and breaking up concentrated markets like food processing, ticketing and hospitals and health care providers to expand consumer choice and drive prices down. The centerpiece of a new Democratic offer to working families should be a new national commitment to guaranteeing 'high skills for all.' Non-college Americans, a majority of the electorate, need a more robust alternative to college: A post-secondary system of work-study opportunities that enable young people to get in-demand skills, credentials and work experience quickly and affordably. Key features of this twin-track approach to upward mobility include dramatically ramping up apprenticeships, eliminating degree requirement for all but highly technical jobs, expanding 'workforce Pell Grants' for high-quality training programs, creating work-study opportunities for all high school students and supporting innovative 'apprenticeship degrees' that enable people to earn money while earning degrees. President Trump isn't wrong that blue-collar workers have borne the brunt of deindustrialization. But his promise of a factory job boom is Fool's Gold. Instead, Democrats should offer working families a new deal that equips them to compete for the jobs that define America's future, not its past. Will Marshall is the founder and president of the Progressive Policy Institute.
