Three years of internal debate within the account aggregator sector are drawing to a close, with a uniform pricing framework now expected to take effect — a development corroborated by three individuals with direct knowledge of the matter and an internal circular obtained by a news outlet. A uniform fee will apply to financial firms drawing on customer data through the account aggregator network once the arrangement takes effect on 1 November 2026, according to the circular and people familiar with the matter.

Three-way division of the proceeds would place portions with the data-holding entity, the account aggregator responsible for its movement, and Sahamati, which functions as the network's self-regulatory body. Under a circular issued by Sahamati — the body recognised by the Reserve Bank of India as the Account Aggregator ecosystem's self-regulatory organisation — direct customer charges for data-sharing activity conducted through the network are not permitted for participating entities, while the organisation noted that a digital public infrastructure utility fee exists to support account aggregators in sustaining and developing that infrastructure layer.

The notice stated that expenses tied to ongoing compliance requirements — covering areas such as two-factor authentication, consent management tools, and strengthened cybersecurity measures — are factored in to keep the underlying infrastructure operating reliably and safely for all users, with particular attention to end-customers. From 1 November, a common pricing framework tied to a single standardised contract will set the terms under which banks, lenders, and account aggregators on the network bill each other — ending the varied bilateral and intermediary-brokered deals, including those arranged through technology service providers, that participants had previously relied upon.

Fees had previously flowed to these middlemen in return for bridging lenders, banks, and the account aggregator network. Billing lenders separately for optional add-ons — such as bespoke software tools — remains an available route for account aggregators.

Functioning as consent-gated conduits, Account Aggregators relay personal financial records — such as deposit account details held at a bank — directly to a requesting party such as a lender, but only after the account holder has explicitly authorised the transfer. The information moves through their systems in encrypted form, leaving no accessible copy behind. Under this framework, organisations that store customer data — banks being a common example — carry the designation of financial information providers, or FIPs, while those that draw on that data, such as lenders, operate as financial information users, known as FIUs.

The Account Aggregator framework is built around expanding access to credit and financial products, though a fee is levied each time personal data moves between parties — even as individuals retain formal control over that data. Spending on digital infrastructure — covering system upgrades as well as cybersecurity measures — forms part of the overall cost burden.

According to unverified sourcing, FIUs would be obligated to pay a fee for access to the channel linking account aggregators and FIPs. Payment to FIPs — banks among them — is contingent on consistent, dependable data delivery. A floor of 80 per cent applies from 1 December, with that threshold climbing across the months that follow.

A single invoice directed to the account aggregator consolidates all three charges, with either the lender or an FIU bearing responsibility for that payment depending on which party the obligation falls to. Of the total collected, the account aggregator retains its portion while the remainder flows to the bank and Sahamati. Under the previous arrangement, FIPs received no payment, while any fee that an FIU took on would ultimately be passed through to both account aggregators and technology service providers.

Under the revised fee framework set out in the circular, technology service providers fall outside the oversight perimeter — unlike account aggregators, banks, and lenders — and no portion of the updated compensation structure has been directed their way, a situation that players in the space say stands to compress their revenue. Prior to this point, each of those players had operated through separate, one-on-one agreements with FIUs and account aggregators.

A co-founder of one technology service provider put forward the view that account aggregators running their own technology arms would be able to offer that underlying infrastructure to lenders at no cost, on the basis that the proposed fee arrangement would generate margins well above what those organisations currently earn. The same co-founder pointed to what they characterised as a structural gap at the heart of the model: the absence of any independent cost benchmarking leaves incentive alignment across the ecosystem without a reliable reference point.

Account aggregator leadership takes a contrasting position. Those involved noted that, without any agreed-upon fee structure in place, technology service providers occupied a position between lenders and account aggregators that allowed them to dictate charges — capturing the bulk of revenue while account aggregators received comparatively little, with one party characterising the margin gap as disproportionate in favour of technology service providers. Records indicate that one entity had been applying pressure on account aggregators at an earlier stage, with the effect of pushing down the rates the FIU was paying. A second individual noted that FIUs had, in a number of instances, directed funds toward technology service providers on the basis of deals those providers had arranged.

Lenders requesting more months of account history pay a higher total, since the fee structure ties each charge to both the individual account whose records are accessed and the volume of historical data pulled. When a borrower submits seven months of bank records — the timeframe cited in the circular — the disbursing institution parts with somewhere between ₹5.88 and ₹6.55 per statement. From that total, the bank's share amounts to ₹2.80, Sahamati receives 40 paise, and whatever remains flows through to the account aggregator.

Borrowers seeking a loan are generally expected to provide their bank statements for the lender's review. Borrowers seeking loans have typically relied on one of two routes: submitting PDF account statements, which carry a risk of document manipulation, or granting automated software direct access to their net banking accounts, an arrangement that brings its own set of security concerns. Both roles previously handled by separate systems are absorbed into the responsibilities of that single network.

Once a borrower gives approval, the lender submits a request for the relevant data, the bank transmits that information electronically, and the account aggregator moves it from one party to the other. Funding the infrastructure required to transmit that data had rested entirely with banks, with no external cost-sharing arrangement in place. The charge is structured to fund those infrastructure needs while also giving banks a financial stake in maintaining reliable service.

Under the revised pricing structure, Sahamati receives a portion of the collected fee. SRO designation was granted to it in June 2026, while a spokesperson noted that the ecosystem would need to sustain itself financially over time. Donor contributions kept the organisation financially afloat across a seven-year stretch. According to one of the individuals cited, Sahamati had also been holding off on disclosing its pricing structure until the organisation received SRO recognition.

That month, funding worth ₹50 crore flowed in from a pool of over 30 financial institutions. Structured as a member-led industry alliance under Section 8 not-for-profit status, Sahamati Foundation operates on a collective, non-commercial basis.