I love JPMorgan. And I have an issue with the recent move of the wall street behemoth. 

JPMorgan-home to 80 million retail customers, 6 million small business clients, and the #1 spot in consumer and SME banking in the U.S.-has just done something interesting. It’s decided to start charging third parties for accessing customer data via APIs.

On paper, this looks like a rational move: monetize the infrastructure, secure the data, and control the traffic. But the implications go much deeper. It’s not just about money. It’s about who gets to build the future of finance-and who doesn’t.

 

Let’s talk numbers first.

Plaid, the leading aggregator, is reportedly facing a new bill of $300 million per year for API access under JPMorgan’s proposed structure. That’s more than 75% of Plaid’s entire 2024 revenue.

Smaller fintechs are sounding the alarm. One said this would “require everyone to raise prices by 1000%.” Another quipped, “JPMorgan’s API fees would exceed our company’s entire 10-year revenue.”

This isn’t just a pricing revision. It’s a reshuffling of the playing field.

 

But here’s the catch: this move isn’t about revenue.

JPMorgan’s annual revenues are hovering around $250 billion. Even if this API monetization effort brought in $1–1.5 billion (which is generous), that’s less than 0.5% of total revenue.

In most banks, anything with <5% impact doesn’t make it to the top of an exec’s to-do list. So what gives?

This isn’t a business model shift. It’s a moat-deepening exercise. The revenue’s incidental. The real prize is control.

Why it matters: Innovation thrives on open pipes.

Fintech, over the past decade, has stood on the shoulders of open data:
-Real-time payments
-Personalized credit underwriting
-Financial wellness dashboards
-Embedded finance tools

All of this has relied-often invisibly-on seamless data access. By cranking the dial on that access, JPMorgan isn’t just charging rent. It’s raising the walls around the castle.

And here’s where the trouble begins. Bigger fintechs can absorb these new costs. The smaller ones? They’ll be priced out before they reach scale.

This isn't a kill switch, but it is a slow suffocation.

 

A quiet shift in power: Who owns the data, anyway?

At the heart of it is a subtle, but important debate: Does the data belong to the bank, or the customer?

In many emerging markets, the answer is clear.

In India, for instance, I had the privilege of serving on the Government’s Internal Review Committee for Account Aggregators data aggregation (India’s Open Banking Framework). I was pleased to note (among other aspects) the founding design principle: Data belongs to the customer. Accessing and sharing it should be free, secure, and customer-controlled.

Contrast that with the U.S., where API access is now being priced like prime real estate.

Customers already pay their banks—in fees, loyalty, float. Charging them again to use their own data feels like double-dipping.

 

Short-term win, long-term erosion?

This might seem like a protective play. But banks aren’t static institutions. Their future hinges on trust, agility, and innovation.

When you make it harder for the ecosystem to build, innovate, and experiment—you also make it harder for yourself to evolve. The most enterprising customers—retail or institutional—will move to where the energy is.

Stifling innovation doesn’t protect the core. It slowly drains its relevance. What’s left is operational strength without strategic vitality.

 

There’s a smarter way to do this.

If the concern is security or misuse (both valid!), then:

- Use tiered pricing based on usage volumes
- Implement rate limits
- Create audit trails for abuse
- Work collaboratively on standard-setting

But blanket pricing? That’s a blunt instrument in a precision economy.

That’s how you keep the bad actors out. Without bringing in stifling control.

 

In closing: Careful what you signal.

JPMorgan has been progressive on many fronts—from embracing fintech partnerships to building strong digital capabilities to seeding a global digital currency network. But this decision signals something that might run contrary to that reputation.

As we move into an open-finance world, what customers notice—sometimes subconsciously—is who’s building doors, and who’s quietly closing them.

The future of finance won’t be decided by who owns the pipes, but by who keeps the taps open. That’s where customer trust—and innovation—flows.