The CFPB filed its rewritten Section 1033 rule — officially the Personal Financial Data Rights Reconsideration — with the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs on Aug. 6, 2026. That’s the last stop before the rule hits the Federal Register, and once it does, the fee ban baked into the original 2024 version is expected to be gone. Banks would get to charge third parties like Plaid for pulling your account data, something Dodd-Frank’s Section 1033 was written to guarantee for free.

We flagged the filing itself the week it landed. A month later, the fee question isn’t hypothetical anymore. JPMorgan Chase didn’t wait for a final rule — it’s already locked in paid data-access contracts covering more than 95% of the requests third-party apps make against its systems. Forbes put Plaid’s exposure alone at roughly $300 million a year. None of that comes out of your account directly. Whether it eventually shows up on your Monarch or YNAB renewal is the question this post actually answers.

Quick Verdict

What’s new since our last update	JPMorgan’s data-access deals now cover Plaid, Yodlee, Morningstar, and Akoya — not just Plaid
Share of data requests covered	Over 95% of third-party requests against JPMorgan accounts
Estimated fee exposure	Forbes estimated Plaid’s cost at roughly $300 million/year; publicly described only as “fractions of a cent per pull”
Who pays first	Aggregators, not you — Plaid says it won’t pass costs to its ~7,000 client apps “at this time”
Fintech pushback	FDATA North America and other trade groups warn fees could raise prices on budgeting apps and credit access
CFPB timeline	OIRA review can run up to 90 days; some reporting suggests publication could land within weeks
What to do now	Nothing urgent. Watch for Federal Register publication and read your app’s next renewal notice closely

What Is Section 1033?

Section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Act gives consumers the right to access their own financial data and share it with third parties of their choosing. The CFPB’s 2024 rule turned that into a mandate: banks had to build secure APIs and couldn’t charge for the access. The 2026 rewrite keeps the data-sharing mandate but reopens whether banks can charge for it.

What the CFPB Actually Filed on Aug. 6

The text of the NPRM still hasn’t been made public. What’s public is the process: the CFPB opened an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in August 2025 that explicitly asked whether banks should be allowed to charge “reasonable fees” to third parties accessing consumer-authorized data. Comments closed in October 2025. The Aug. 6, 2026 submission is the proposal built from that comment period, and it’s now sitting with OIRA for executive review under Executive Order 12866, a process that can run up to 90 days.

It might not take that long. According to American Banker’s reporting on the filing, a public release is expected “within weeks, if not days,” and banking attorney Joe Lynyak of Dorsey & Whitney called the proposal sent to the White House “a victory for banks by providing for a fee structure when third-party representatives seek customer data.” Consumer Finance Monitor’s coverage of the OIRA submission is more cautious, noting the bureau hasn’t confirmed exactly what survived from the ANPR. Both things can be true: the direction is well telegraphed, the specifics (thresholds, caps, what counts as “reasonable”) aren’t public yet.

JPMorgan Already Answered the Question the Rule Hasn’t

Here’s what makes this different from a normal rulemaking story. While the CFPB spent a year running comment periods, JPMorgan Chase went and built the fee model anyway.

Chase first signaled it would start charging aggregators for data access back in the summer of 2025, and by September 2025 it had a paid agreement in place with Plaid specifically — the deal we covered in our first look at this fight. That turned out to be the opening move, not the whole story. By November 2025, JPMorgan had finalized similar paid agreements with Yodlee, Morningstar, and Akoya, the three other aggregators most budgeting and finance apps route through when they’re not using Plaid. Together, those four companies account for more than 95% of the third-party data requests hitting Chase’s systems. After weeks of pushback, the aggregators reportedly landed lower pricing than JPMorgan originally proposed — a real concession, but a concession off a starting number nobody outside the negotiations has seen.

That’s not a bank waiting on a federal rule to tell it fees are allowed. That’s a bank that decided the market would bear it, cut deals with essentially the entire aggregation layer, and is now watching the CFPB potentially write its playbook into federal regulation for every other bank to follow.

The $300 Million Question

The number that keeps showing up in coverage of this fight is $300 million. Forbes reported in July 2025 that JPMorgan’s original fee proposal — steepest for payments-related data transfers — would have cost Plaid on the order of $300 million a year if left unchanged. The finalized pricing came in lower after negotiation, but the figure stuck as shorthand for the scale of what’s at stake, and it’s still the number analysts cite when they talk about what a Chase-style fee model would mean if every large bank adopted it.

The specifics of what actually got billed are murky by design. People familiar with the pricing described it to Bloomberg as “fractions of a cent per data pull” — trivial-sounding until you multiply it across every balance check and transaction sync that every Monarch, YNAB, Copilot, and Rocket Money user with a Chase account triggers, every day, indefinitely. Plaid has said publicly that the arrangement won’t change what it charges its roughly 7,000 client apps, for now. That’s worth taking at face value and also worth not treating as permanent. Absorbing a cost while you’re the only aggregator paying it is a different bet than absorbing it once every major bank has cut the same kind of deal.

What Fintech Groups Say Will Happen Next

The trade groups representing budgeting and lending apps didn’t sit this one out. When JPMorgan’s fees first went public, FDATA North America’s executive director Steve Boms called the move “a cynical attempt to take advantage of regulatory uncertainty,” and the Financial Technology Association’s CEO Penny Lee said charging for data access “threatens to jeopardize millions of Americans’ access to the financial services of their choice.” The American Fintech Council’s Phil Goldfeder went further, calling it “a shameless attempt to further entrench the position of incumbents.”

Those reactions were aimed at JPMorgan specifically. Once the CFPB’s own filing landed, Boms weighed in on the rule itself too, telling American Banker the OIRA submission “marks an important step in the ongoing effort to establish a lasting open banking framework in the United States” — while insisting “the final framework must preserve consumers’ right to fee-free, secure access to and sharing of their financial data.” Read those two statements together and the fintech industry’s position is consistent: they’ll take progress on the technical mandate, but the fee question is the one they’re not willing to lose.

Their underlying argument is the same one we heard when we first covered this fight: banks don’t eat costs, they pass them along. If aggregators start paying per pull at scale, and enough of them decide absorbing it isn’t sustainable, the bill eventually lands somewhere. Trade groups argue it lands on the apps you pay for, and through them, on you.

How Bank Data Fees Would Actually Reach Your Budgeting App

1. A bank sets a fee for aggregators pulling account data — the model JPMorgan already built with Plaid, Yodlee, Morningstar, and Akoya, and the model the CFPB’s rewrite could make standard across the industry.
2. The aggregator absorbs the cost at first, the way Plaid says it’s doing right now, largely to avoid disrupting client contracts mid-cycle.
3. Aggregator pricing to client apps resets at the next contract renewal, once enough banks are charging enough fees that absorbing them stops penciling out.
4. Your budgeting app either eats the increase or raises its subscription price — the same tradeoff every business faces when a core input cost moves.

Every link in that chain is plausible. None of it is guaranteed, and the gap between step one and step four typically runs months to years, not weeks.

What This Means for Monarch, YNAB, Copilot, and Rocket Money

None of these apps have announced a price change tied to Section 1033, and nothing here suggests one is imminent. But it’s worth knowing where each stands. Monarch and Copilot route most connections through Plaid — Monarch’s annual plan runs $99.99/year, Copilot’s $95/year with no free tier. Rocket Money splits connections between Plaid and MX Technologies, pricing Premium at $6-$12/month on a pay-what-you-choose model. YNAB, at $109/year, also depends on Plaid but has always treated manual transaction entry as a real feature rather than a fallback — which matters more here than it used to, because it’s the one lever that makes a user genuinely less exposed to aggregator-side pricing.

If fees do ripple through the industry, the apps leaning hardest on high-frequency auto-sync carry the most cost pressure to eventually pass along. Apps where manual entry is a first-class option give you an actual way to sidestep it, not just a consolation prize.

What to Actually Do Right Now

• Don’t expect a price change on your next renewal. The rule hasn’t even hit the Federal Register yet, and there’s another public comment period coming after it does.
• Watch for the Federal Register publication. That’s when the CFPB’s actual fee language — thresholds, caps, anything close to specifics — becomes public for the first time.
• Know whether your bank has already cut a deal. Chase’s arrangement with Plaid, Yodlee, Morningstar, and Akoya is confirmed. Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and Citi haven’t announced anything similar as of this writing.
• Keep manual entry as a backup habit, especially if you’re on YNAB or any app that supports it well. It’s the one part of this story you can opt out of on your own terms.
• Read renewal emails past the headline number. If a budgeting app does raise its price next year, data-cost language in the fine print is where you’d see this story show up first.

The Bottom Line

The CFPB’s Aug. 6 filing is the clearest sign yet that the fee ban from the original Section 1033 rule isn’t coming back, but the text still isn’t public and the direction, while well telegraphed, isn’t finalized. What’s not ambiguous is what JPMorgan already did: it built a paid data-access model covering 95% of the requests hitting its systems, months before any rule required or even permitted it, and Forbes put the potential cost to Plaid alone in the hundreds of millions a year. Plaid says it’s covering that cost today. Whether it, or the next aggregator to sign a similar deal, keeps covering it once every major bank wants the same terms Chase got, is the thing to actually watch — because that’s the moment this stops being a regulatory story and starts being a line item on your renewal.

---

Regulatory details reflect the CFPB’s Aug. 6, 2026 OIRA submission and public reporting as of this writing. JPMorgan’s fee agreements with Plaid, Yodlee, Morningstar, and Akoya, and the $300 million estimate, come from reporting cited above; exact contracted pricing has not been disclosed by any party. The CFPB’s proposed rule text is not yet public. Verify current pricing with your budgeting app before assuming any change has taken effect.