US consumer watchdog kicks off redo of 'open banking' rules on customer data
The decision marked an about-face amid public pressure from fintech firms and crypto entrepreneurs whose fortunes have soared since President Donald Trump returned to the White House this year.
The watchdog asked numerous questions on how best to implement the consumer data rules - now 15 years in the making and prescribed as part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation - requiring that banks give consumers access to their own financial data, including account information, transactions, usage and fees "upon request."
The regulations were previously completed by the Biden administration, earning a legal challenge from the banking industry who opposed that version, citing risks to consumer data security.
Former CFPB Director Rohit Chopra said in October that the regulations would let consumers switch banks with the same ease as switching telephone companies, allowing comparison shopping for mortgages and accounts - with data shared free of charge.
The Trump administration initially told a court it supported banking industry calls to strike down the Biden regulations but in late July reversed course, saying that due to unnamed "recent events in the marketplace," it would replace the regulations with a version more to the administration's liking.
The backpedaling came after politically connected crypto entrepreneurs, including Tyler Winkelvoss and Donald Trump Jr., took to social media to denounce JPMorgan Chase over a Bloomberg report that the bank had informed fintech firms they would in fact have to pay potentially hefty fees for access to depositors' data, even though the pending Biden-era regulations still prevented this. In an earnings call in mid-July, JPMorgan chief Jamie Dimon said securely sharing customer data was costly.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
International Business Times
an hour ago
- International Business Times
Apple Chooses India for iPhone 17 Manufacturing, Sidestepping Trump's Trade Heat
Apple is making a pivotal change to its global supply chain, one that places India at the center even as U.S. President Donald Trump presses for iPhones to be made in America. All four models of the iPhone 17 lineup, which are expected to launch in September, will be produced in India. It is the first time Apple will assemble its newest phones there before they reach other markets. The shift is part of Apple's broader effort to reduce reliance on China, long its largest production base. The company is expanding output across five plants in India, including new facilities run by the Tata Group in Tamil Nadu and a Foxconn site near Bangalore. Tata's entry into iPhone assembly is seen as especially significant. Within the next two years, its factories are expected to contribute nearly half of India's iPhone production. That would cement Tata as one of Apple's most important regional partners and make India a long-term manufacturing hub for the company. India's exports of iPhones are already climbing quickly. Between April and July this year, shipments reached $7.5 billion, compared with $17 billion for the entire previous fiscal year. Analysts say India has now overtaken China as the top exporter of smartphones to the U.S.—a significant milestone in Apple's shifting supply chain. President Trump has repeatedly urged Apple to bring iPhone manufacturing back to the United States. He has warned that devices made in India or China could face higher import duties. He has recently raised the tariff percentage from 25 to 50% on India, one of the highest levied on any country. Industry experts note that Apple began preparing for such challenges years ago by investing heavily in India. That foresight is paying dividends, as India's role in supplying U.S.-bound iPhones rises while China's share declines. The timing of this transition comes just weeks ahead of Apple's annual September event, where the company is expected to introduce the iPhone 17 series. The lineup will include the iPhone 17, iPhone 17 Air, iPhone 17 Pro, and iPhone 17 Pro Max. Other announcements may feature Watch Series 11, Watch Ultra 3, and the latest iOS update. Pricing interest is also strong. The iPhone 17 is expected to launch at $1,078.80, while the iPhone 17 Air may be priced at $1,198.80. The Pro model is anticipated at $1,751.88, and the top-end Pro Max at $1,979.88.
CNA
2 hours ago
- CNA
Musk, X Corp to settle $500-million lawsuit over Twitter firings
NEW YORK :Elon Musk and his social media company X Corp have reached a tentative agreement to settle a lawsuit filed by former Twitter employees who said they were owed $500 million in severance pay. Attorneys for X Corp and the former Twitter employees reported the deal in a Wednesday court filing, in which both sides asked a U.S. appeals court to delay an upcoming court hearing so that they could finalize a deal that would pay the fired employees and end the litigation. The financial terms of the deal were not disclosed. Musk fired approximately 6,000 employees after his 2022 acquisition of Twitter, which he rebranded X. Several employees sued over their terminations and severance pay, and other lawsuits are still pending in courts in Delaware and California. The settlement would resolve a proposed class action filed in California by Courtney McMillian, who previously oversaw Twitter's employee benefits programs as its "head of total rewards," and Ronald Cooper, who was an operations manager. A federal judge in San Francisco dismissed the employees' lawsuit in July 2024, and they appealed to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Court of Appeals. The 9th Circuit had been scheduled to hear oral arguments on September 17. Attorneys for Musk and McMillian did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Thursday. The lawsuit argued that a 2019 severance plan guaranteed that most Twitter workers would receive two months of their base pay plus one week of pay for each full year of service if they were laid off. Senior employees such as McMillian were owed six months of base pay, according to the lawsuit. But Twitter only gave laid-off workers at most one month of severance pay, and many of them did not receive anything, according to the lawsuit. Twitter laid off more than half of its workforce as a cost-cutting measure after Musk acquired the company.
CNA
2 hours ago
- CNA
New York appeals court throws out President Donald Trump's massive civil fraud penalty
NEW YORK: A New York appeals court on Thursday (Aug 21) threw out the massive financial penalty a state judge imposed on US President Donald Trump, while narrowly upholding a finding he engaged in fraud by exaggerating his wealth for decades. The ruling spares Trump from a potential half-billion-dollar fine but bans him and his two eldest sons from serving in corporate leadership for a few years. Trump, in a social media post, claimed 'total victory.' 'I greatly respect the fact that the Court had the Courage to throw out this unlawful and disgraceful Decision that was hurting Business all throughout New York State,' he wrote. The decision came seven months after the Republican leader returned to the White House. A sharply divided panel of five judges in New York's mid-level Appellate Division couldn't agree on many issues raised in Trump's appeal, but a majority said the monetary penalty was 'excessive.' After finding Trump flagrantly padding financial statements that went to lenders and insurers, Judge Arthur Engoron ordered him last year to pay $355 million in penalties. The sum has topped $515 million with interest. Additional penalties levied on some other Trump Organization executives, including Trump's sons Eric and Donald Jr, bring the total to $527 million with interest. AN EXCESSIVE FINE THAT VIOLATES 8TH AMENDMENT 'While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants' business culture, the court's disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution,' Judges Dianne T. Renwick and Peter H. Moulton wrote in one of several opinions shaping the appeals court's ruling. Engoron's other punishments, upheld by the appeals court, have been on pause during Trump's appeal, and the president was able to hold off on the collection of the money by posting $175 million bond. The court, which split on the merits of the lawsuit and Engoron's fraud finding, dismissed the penalty in its entirety while also leaving a pathway for an appeal to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals. Trump and his co-defendants, the judges wrote, can seek to extend the pause on any punishments taking effect. The panel was sharply divided, issuing 323 pages of concurring and dissenting opinions with no majority. Rather, some judges endorsed parts of their colleagues' findings while denouncing others, enabling the court to rule. Two judges wrote that they felt New York Attorney General Letitia James' lawsuit against Trump and his companies was justifiable and that she had proven her case, but the penalty was too severe. One wrote that James exceeded her legal authority in bringing the suit, saying that if any of Trump's lenders felt cheated, they could have sued him themselves, and none did. One judge wrote that Engoron erred by ruling before the trial began that the attorney general had proved Trump engaged in fraud. In his portion of the ruling, Judge David Friedman, who was appointed to the court by Republican Gov. George Pataki, was scathing in his criticism of James for bringing the lawsuit. CLAIMS OF POLITICS AT PLAY 'Plainly, her ultimate goal was not 'market hygiene' ... but political hygiene, ending with the derailment of President Trump's political career and the destruction of his real estate business," Friedman wrote. "The voters have obviously rendered a verdict on his political career. This bench today unanimously derails the effort to destroy his business.' The appeals court, the Appellate Division of the state's trial court, took an unusually long time to rule, weighing Trump's appeal for nearly 11 months after oral arguments last fall. Normally, appeals are decided in a matter of weeks or a few months. James has said Trump engaged in 'lying, cheating, and staggering fraud.' Her office had no immediate comment after Thursday's decision Trump and his lawyers said his financial statements weren't deceptive, since they came with disclaimers noting they weren't audited. The defence also noted bankers and insurers independently evaluated the numbers, and the loans were repaid. Despite such discrepancies as tripling the size of his Trump Tower penthouse, he said the financial statements were, if anything, lowball estimates of his fortune. State attorneys said that while Trump insists no one was harmed by the financial statements, his exaggerations led lenders to make riskier loans and that honest borrowers lose out when others game their net worth. TRUMP FACED LEGAL OBSTACLES DURING CAMPAIGN The civil fraud case was just one of several legal obstacles for Trump as he campaigned, won and segued to a second term as president. On January 10, he was also sentenced in a criminal hush money case to what is known as an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction on the books but sparing him jail, probation, a fine or other punishment. He is appealing. In December, a federal appeals court upheld the jury's finding that Trump sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and later defamed her, affirming a $5 million judgment against him. The appeals court declined to reconsider in June, but Trump may still try to get the Supreme Court to hear his appeal. The president is also appealing a subsequent verdict that requires him to pay Carroll $83.3 million for additional defamation claims.
