CFPB Returns To Full Open-Banking Rewrite After Cash Infusion

The headline refers to the CFPB deciding to redo its U.S. open‑banking rule (the Section 1033 “open banking” regulation) through a full, traditional rulemaking process, after securing enough funding to avoid the shortcut “interim final rule” approach it had previously signaled.

What has changed

• In late 2025, the CFPB told a federal court it would issue an interim final rule to quickly revise its 1033 open‑banking framework, citing an expected funding lapse that could shut down or severely limit the agency’s operations.

• That plan implied a faster, less participatory process and raised concerns that the Bureau might try to skip some elements of the usual notice‑and‑comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Now, according to the Bloomberg Law piece, the Bureau has received a cash infusion (i.e., enough new funding) and is returning to a full rewrite via formal notice‑and‑comment rulemaking, abandoning the interim‑final shortcut.​

Why this matters

• A full rulemaking means:

  • A proposed rule, published in the Federal Register.

  • A public comment period where banks, fintechs, and consumer groups can weigh in.

  • A revised and finalized rule that must respond to those comments.

• This is important because the original 2024 Final Rule is:

  • Under active legal challenge from banking trade groups.

  • Already stayed (paused) by a federal judge pending reconsideration.

By recommitting to a full rewrite, the CFPB is signaling it wants a more legally durable and politically defensible open‑banking framework rather than a quick fix that might be vulnerable in court.

Practical implications for banks and fintechs

• Timeline likely stretches: Compliance dates that were originally set to start in April 2026 for the largest institutions are already under reconsideration and will probably be pushed back further as part of the rewrite.

• Key issues back on the table:

  • How consent is obtained and managed.

  • Who bears which costs (e.g., whether banks can charge for data access).

  • Security, privacy, and liability allocation around data sharing.

• Strategic takeaway: Firms should plan for continued evolution, not repeal—most observers expect some version of national open‑banking standards to move forward, but with revised scopes, deadlines, and possibly more deference to existing industry standards and commercial arrangements.