The loophole lies in the wording, the regulation only protects you against unauthorized transactions. Plaid makes transactions on your behalf, it's arguable wh

The loophole lies in the wording, the regulation only protects you against unauthorized transactions. Plaid makes transactions on your behalf, it's arguable whether they are unauthorized transactions. To quote a similar case from real life. When your wife empties your bank account, you may not be able to get your money back because that doesn't constitute an unauthorized transaction. Also, nobody will flag it or alert you, because they don't think of it as abnormal.