Discover top fintech news and events!
Subscribe to FinTech Weekly's newsletter
Read by executives at JP Morgan, Coinbase, Blackrock, Klarna and more
The Rising Cost of Data in Fintech and AI
Data has always been essential to fintech—but for a long time, access to it was quietly assumed. That assumption is beginning to shift.
Two developments in recent weeks offer a window into what may be a new phase in the digital economy: JPMorgan’s announcement that it will begin charging fintech platforms for access to customer account data, and Cursor’s decision to revise its pricing for API-based usage of advanced AI models. These are not isolated incidents. They reflect growing pressure on platforms that depend on third-party data infrastructure—whether from banks or model providers—to rethink their cost structures, value propositions, and customer communications.
The message, increasingly, is simple: data still powers innovation, but it may no longer come without a price.
Fintech’s Data Access Under Strain
JPMorgan wants to impose fees on data aggregators. If implemented, the pricing would affect hundreds of platforms that rely on intermediaries such as Plaid and MX to connect with banks and pull user account data.
This includes payment apps, lending platforms, budgeting tools, neobanks, and even crypto wallets—any service that requires secure, real-time financial data to function.
Historically, fintech companies have been able to access customer bank data through intermediaries without incurring direct charges from the banks themselves. This arrangement, though never formally codified, became standard practice as the sector scaled.
It emerged during a period when regulators were still defining the boundaries of open banking and banks were cautious about appearing obstructive to innovation. In the absence of a clear commercial model, and under growing pressure to support data portability, many banks tolerated or informally cooperated with aggregators that pulled data on behalf of users. These aggregators, in turn, provided the infrastructure fintechs relied on to build products. The assumption across much of the industry was that data access — especially when initiated by the consumer — was not something that required payment.
But that assumption was never guaranteed, and as institutions invest in more robust security, compliance, and API infrastructure, the calculus is changing. What was once treated as a frictionless handshake is now being reframed as a service with real costs, accountability, and risk. The informal model that supported early-stage growth may no longer hold in a financial environment defined by scalability, liability, and the monetization of access.
According to people familiar with JPMorgan’s plans, the proposed fees could vary by use case, with payments-related companies likely to incur the highest charges. One source suggested that in some cases, the fees could exceed the transaction revenue fintech firms generate by a factor of ten. Aggregators may absorb some of that cost, but it is likely to be passed on—either to fintech platforms or their users.
If this shift expands to other banks, it could mark a pivotal change in fintech’s operating model. Where previously data access was seen as a public-good-like component of financial innovation, it may soon be categorized as a monetizable service—priced, tiered, and regulated like any other input.
Regulation in Limbo, Business Models in Flux
Much of the tension around JPMorgan’s move stems from a parallel uncertainty in regulation. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau finalized an open-banking rule in October, affirming consumers’ rights to share their data with third parties. But the rule is now under legal challenge, leaving banks in a position where they are required to provide access—but not necessarily to provide it without cost.
The situation puts fintech firms in a delicate position. On one hand, open banking is supposed to promote competition by lowering switching costs and improving transparency. On the other, if data access becomes expensive, the very firms meant to benefit from that access may find themselves priced out—or forced to increase costs to end users.
This tension is not ideological. It is operational. Maintaining secure data pipelines, complying with liability obligations, and defending against fraud all cost money. Millions. Large banks argue that recovering some of those costs is not only fair, but necessary for long-term stability. Fintech platforms, especially smaller or earlier-stage ones, see it as a risk to innovation and inclusion.
Both views carry weight. But regardless of outcome, the emerging reality is clear: fintechs will need to plan for a world where data is not free.
Cursor’s Case: A Different Market, A Similar Message
The Cursor case provides a parallel example—not in banking, but in software powered by AI.
Cursor, the coding assistant platform built on top of advanced models from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google, changed the terms of its Pro subscription plan in June. The new structure replaced unlimited access with a $20 usage cap based on API pricing. Users quickly found that expensive models like Claude Opus could exhaust that limit in just a few prompts. Many were caught off guard, especially those unaware that going over the limit would incur charges.
Cursor later apologized and promised refunds, but the underlying cause remains: the cost of using cutting-edge AI models is rising—and platforms that offer access to those models are finding it increasingly difficult to insulate users from those costs.
While Cursor and JPMorgan operate in very different industries, the structural pressure they face is comparable. Both are intermediaries delivering high-value services through systems they don’t fully control. Both are confronting the same underlying question: how much should access cost, and who should pay for it?
What This Means for Fintech Operators
For founders, product leads, and infrastructure teams in fintech, these developments underscore several important realities:
The economics of access are changing. Whether it’s bank data or AI model tokens, what was once abundant and inexpensive may now come with pricing controls, usage thresholds, and variable billing.
Communication is critical. As Cursor learned, changes to pricing structures—even if justifiable—can erode user trust if not clearly communicated. For fintechs contemplating similar transitions, transparency will be essential.
Vendor dependence is no longer neutral. Platforms that rely on banks, cloud providers, or third-party APIs may need to reconsider how they structure those relationships. Lock-in isn’t just technical—it’s financial.
Regulatory uncertainty adds complexity. In both cases, the final outcome will be shaped in part by regulation. But fintech leaders can’t afford to wait for clarity—they need to build models that work under multiple scenarios.
Planning for a Post-Free-Data Environment
None of this is about ending open banking or curtailing AI innovation. Instead, it’s about moving toward a more sustainable, better-aligned digital infrastructure—one in which the costs of security, performance, and integration are visible and shared.
For the fintech sector, this transition will require adjustments. Product teams may need to prioritize efficiency. Pricing models might need to reflect usage tiers more closely. And customer onboarding will need to include clearer explanations of what access costs—and why.
More than anything, the shift signals maturity. A space once defined by experimentation is now facing questions of cost recovery, resource allocation, and platform responsibility.
A New Era of Pricing Discipline
Data access remains essential to fintech—but it’s no longer something that can be taken for granted. As banks introduce fees and API providers raise prices, the industry is entering a phase where business models will be tested, not just by competition, but by infrastructure economics.
For some, that may mean rethinking architecture. For others, it may mean forming new partnerships. In either case, the lesson is clear: access has value, and value now comes with a bill.
