論開放金融之金融消費者保護法制

開放銀行是全球近年來重要的金融創新趨勢，未來可能進一步發展為開放金融，並可帶來推動金融服務的創新、提升消費者之使用體驗、促進普惠金融之發展等利益，但同時也伴隨著金融消費者保護、個人資料保護、資訊安全等風險，若未適當的控管相關風險，則可能減損金融消費者對於開放金融的信心。我國目前係以分三階段之「自願自律」模式推動開放銀行，但可能造成金融機構較欠缺與TSP業者合作的誘因、金融機構與主管機關恐未能落實委外作業監理等監理上之問題。此外，就算我國現行消費者保護法及金融消費者保護法所架構的規範模式皆能適用，亦不足以因應上述風險。透過比較法研究，本文主張在事前觀點下，我國未來應參照新加坡的監理模式而區別委外作業監理模式適用之情形，加強TSP業者之次委外廠商的規範，並要求TSP業者遵循金融消費者保護法中適合性義務、忠實義務及說明義務之規定。在事後觀點下，應釐清金融機構與TSP業者間之責任歸屬方式，並應將「依所提供服務之曝險程度投保適當的範圍」之作法作為最低強制規定；未來在TSP業者之規模足以產生系統性風險時，亦應使金融消費者與TSP業者之間因開放金融服務所生之民事爭議，得適用金融消費者保護法建構之金融消費評議制度。

關鍵字

開放銀行；開放金融；第三方服務業者；金融消費者保護；紛爭解決機制；委外作業

並列摘要

Open banking is a globally important financial innovation trend in recent years, which has the potential to further develop into open finance. Although open finance possess the benefits of supporting the innovation of financial services, improving the user experience of consumers, and facilitating the development of financial inclusion, it also poses several risks to consumer protection, personal data protection, and data security. The lack of proper control of the associated risks might impair the confidence of consumers in open finance. Taiwan adopts a three-stage and non-compulsory model to promote open banking, together with banks’ outsourcing arrangements. However, this model faces several problems, such as that financial institutions have limited incentives to cooperate with third party service providers, financial institutions and competent authorities might fail to adequately supervise the outsourcing arrangements, etc. In addition, even if the Consumer Protection Act and Financial Consumer Protection Act may apply to open finance, the associated risks in open finance still lack proper control. Through comparative legal studies, this thesis proposes that, ex-ante, Taiwan may refer to Singapore’s regulatory model and distinguish between third party service providers with and without outsourcing arrangement with banks, strengthen the regulation of the sub-contractors of third party service providers, and require third party service providers to comply with the suitability requirement, fiduciary duty, and disclosure duty under the Financial Consumer Protection Act. Ex-post, financial institutions and third party service providers should clarify the allocation of the liability arising from their collaboration and at least have insurance coverage taking into account the risk associated with the services. This thesis also proposes that when third party service providers have grown in to a scale that could trigger systemic risks, the financial ombudsman mechanism under Financial Consumer Protection Act should apply to private disputes between third party service providers and their financial consumers.