After months of silence, there are signs of renewed movement in the European Financial Data Access (FiDA) file. Since the trilogue negotiations stalled in June 2025, progress has been limited. The discussions between Parliament, Council and Commission did not lead to a clear final outcome.
Explains what the European Union aims to achieve with FiDA.
On 6 April, the European Commission published a new non-paper with proposed adjustments. The objective is clear: to restart the process and move towards a political agreement.
Political pressure: fewer rules, lower burden
The context in which FiDA is developing has changed. Calls for deregulation have become louder. Germany plays a key role in this. As the largest economy in the EU and one of the most influential Member States in the Council, its position has a direct impact on the feasibility of European regulation.
The position of Friedrich Merz, focused on reducing regulation and administrative burdens for companies, resonates across Europe, including in countries such as France and the Netherlands. This reflects the core criticism of FiDA: too complex, too broad and too burdensome for the market.
Germany’s stance effectively acts as a political anchor in the negotiations. Without movement from Germany, reaching agreement on FiDA is difficult to envisage.
From heavy to pragmatic
The Commission’s revised approach marks a clear shift. FiDA is moving away from an ambitious and relatively heavy open finance framework towards a more pragmatic and market-oriented model.
Key elements include a narrower and less burdensome scope, reduced requirements to share historical data, greater protection of commercially sensitive data, phased and more manageable implementation, reduced bureaucracy, and more room for market-driven standards.
At the same time, tensions remain. Mandatory data sharing is still part of FiDA, which is exactly where much of the resistance lies. In addition, FiDA introduces another regulatory layer on top of existing frameworks such as PSD2 and GDPR.
What is changing?
The non-paper introduces a series of targeted adjustments to make the framework lighter and more workable.
First, the scope is reduced by excluding certain entities and datasets, such as credit rating agencies, large corporates and smaller financial firms. Further exclusions are being considered, including small insurance intermediaries. This reduces complexity and compliance burden.
Second, requirements to share historical data are being limited. Instead of broad datasets over long periods, a phased approach with a shorter look-back period is considered, for example two years. Terminated contracts are often excluded. This lowers costs and reduces privacy concerns.
Third, only data that has not been substantially processed falls within scope. This protects enriched or proprietary data and helps preserve competitive advantage.
Fourth, the development of standards and APIs is partly delegated to the market via European standardisation organisations. At the same time, detailed EU-level obligations are reduced. This increases flexibility and reduces top-down regulation.
Fifth, FiDA will be rolled out in three phases over approximately four years. Data sharing schemes are set up first, followed by mandatory data sharing. After each phase, the Commission will evaluate progress and may adjust the next phase. This lowers implementation risks and improves manageability.
Sixth, an alternative approach where data would only be shared if there is proven market demand is explicitly rejected. This prevents fragmentation across Member States and ensures that customer rights remain central.
Seventh, the role of large technology companies has become a central topic. Options include restricting access to data or limiting licensing. There is no consensus yet, but the issue is clearly on the table.
Eighth, the licensing process for financial information service providers is simplified, including reuse of existing PSD2 information and fewer duplicate procedures. This reduces administrative burden.
Ninth, an important principle remains unchanged. Data holders can also access data from others, subject to customer consent. This means traditional financial institutions become both data providers and data users.
Conclusion
FiDA is not abandoned, but it is being recalibrated. The European Commission is moving towards a more pragmatic approach that prioritises feasibility and political support.
The balance is shifting towards a model that is less burdensome for market participants, while maintaining the core principle of mandatory, standardised data sharing. This remains the main source of political tension in the period ahead.