Based on this, and the blog post, they clearly take issue with the term ‘sold’. Making the users data accessible via api to customers who’ve paid for access to said data does not constitute ‘being sold’, as far as their lawyers are concerned. The fact that 98 million users disagree is unfortunate...
The product was sold as infrastructure, and used as data collection, and 98 million users were not aware of that.
If you’re unable to reconcile why users of square cash would be confused when they hear their data is accessible through some service called ‘plaid’ for which they’ve never signed up, or given their data, then maybe you could start with defining terms as they would, rather than how you’d prefer they sound.
Having data in a database doesn’t make it yours, it’s the users. It was when it was in their bank, it is when you move it to your service and it remains when you provide it to someone else.
The product was sold as infrastructure, and used as data collection, and 98 million users were not aware of that.
If you’re unable to reconcile why users of square cash would be confused when they hear their data is accessible through some service called ‘plaid’ for which they’ve never signed up, or given their data, then maybe you could start with defining terms as they would, rather than how you’d prefer they sound.
Having data in a database doesn’t make it yours, it’s the users. It was when it was in their bank, it is when you move it to your service and it remains when you provide it to someone else.