TL;DR: Open finance adoption is accelerating across North America, and Sumsub says sophisticated fraud rose by more than 180% last year, while FDATA now counts more than 30 member firms shaping permissioned data access standards. The practical issue is that consumer-permissioned finance still depends on identity controls that are not yet consistently designed for fraud-resilient delegation and consent.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Sumsub: Supporting the open finance ecosystem alongside FDATA members to advance secure, consumer-permissioned financial data access in North America
By the numbers:
- Open finance adoption is accelerating across North America, and FDATA represents more than 30 financial technology companies and consumer-permissioned data access platforms in the United States and Canada.
- Sumsub says sophisticated fraud rose by over 180% last year, raising the pressure on identity verification in permissioned data access flows.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should organisations govern consumer-permissioned financial data access?
A: Organisations should govern consumer-permissioned access as a lifecycle problem, not a one-time consent event.
Q: Why does open finance increase identity verification requirements?
A: Open finance increases verification requirements because the identity check now decides whether data or transaction authority should be released across multiple parties.
Q: What do security teams get wrong about permissioned data access?
A: The common mistake is treating permissioned access as a compliance checkbox instead of an operational control.
Practitioner guidance
- Map delegated consent chains end to end Document every party that can receive, transform, or reuse consumer permission in open finance flows.
- Separate read and write policy paths Apply stricter authentication, verification, and approval rules to write-access flows than to read-only access.
- Feed fraud signals into access decisions Treat verification outcomes as inputs to real-time authorisation, not just onboarding records.
What's in the full article
Sumsub's full article covers the partnership and policy detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- FDATA working group participation across the U.S. Policy, Canada, and Write-Access groups
- Sumsub's own framing of how secure identity verification supports open finance policy discussions
- The specific open finance and consumer-permissioned access context behind the membership announcement
- The company and association statements in full, including the compliance and trust positioning
👉 Read Sumsub's update on joining FDATA to support open finance identity controls →
Open finance identity verification: what IAM teams need to know?
Explore further
Open finance is turning consumer consent into an identity governance problem. The article frames secure data access as a trust and compliance issue, but the deeper reality is that consent alone does not govern the full access lifecycle. Once multiple platforms, aggregators, and institutions participate, teams need to know who can act, on whose behalf, and under what revocation conditions. That is classic identity governance, just applied to a cross-ecosystem consent chain rather than a corporate directory.
A few things that frame the scale:
- NHIs outnumber human identities by 25x to 50x in modern enterprises, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts, which is why delegated access problems often persist unseen.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How should IAM and fraud teams handle write access in open finance?
A: IAM and fraud teams should treat write access as a higher-risk entitlement with its own policy, verification, and approval path. Write permissions can change account state, create liability, or trigger monetary movement, so they need stronger controls than read access. The safest model is separate governance for observation and action.
👉 Read our full editorial: Open finance identity verification is becoming a governance issue