[kristianc]

> Well, the fact that banks traditionally allow reverting fraudulent transactions is becoming more and more of a unique selling point.

Playing fast and loose with security because the bank will be on the hook (at financial cost to the bank) does not seem like a moral or ethical thing to do, and banks would be likely to pull transaction reversion from anyone who tried to use it as a feature.

[chatmasta → kristianc]

On the contrary, the fact that services like Plaid are able to exist, indicates otherwise. If banks had a problem with the implementation, they would send cease and desists.

[kristianc → chatmasta]

In the UK at least, there's often a liability shift if you do end up using a service such as Plaid.

Banks won't cover you for fraud that ends up happening because of you handing your online banking password to someone and rightly so.

When they do cover you, it'll be because they have a professional relationship with Plaid and/or they rely on other auth methods such as EMV CAP.