The developer pays for that access. The developer is a third party. They're buying transaction data.
It's explicitly stated within their sales page and directly contradictory to the statement he made above.
It's explicitly stated within their sales page and directly contradictory to the statement he made above.
I understand what you're saying, but I think it would be less confusing to keep the idea I described above and what Plaid is doing (AFAIU) distinct.
More specifically I understand it as: If I engage with some entity/company/developer and give them the permission and secrets necessary to access my account, they can pay Plaid to make use of them on my behalf in the process of doing whatever it is I gave them that access for.
This activity is, and always has been to me, completely distinct from the activity of "selling my data", although it could result in the one I authorized to access my data through Plaid turning around and selling my data.
The developer is purchasing the technological infrastructure to deliver the data a single specific user has opted to provide to them.
Claiming the developer is a third party is like claiming I'm a third party when I order off Amazon, and that the USPS is the actual customer.
Under any framing, that's a third party paying for access to your transaction data.
The user hasn't opted-in if the co-founder of the company is telling people it doesn't happen. It's only opt-in if the user knows it's happening and agrees to it.
Then ask yourself why the founding team goes around and tells people they don't do that.
"Are you aware that connecting app Foo to your bank account gives app Foo access to your transactions?" is likely to be met with a resounding "no shit, that's the point..."
And your claim is that the point of the user signing up to Robinhood or Venmo is to give Robinhood or Venmo their entire bank account history for the last two years?
I find this implausible. You have an empirical claim. You're welcome to test it.