OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Insurely AB

Making the insurance industry open and obvious.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Eero Heinäluoma (Member of the European Parliament)

28 Jan 2026 · Topical Discussion

Meeting with Mattias Levin (Acting Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

23 Sept 2025 · FIDA

Meeting with Stéphanie Yon-Courtin (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

10 Apr 2025 · FIDA

Meeting with Arba Kokalari (Member of the European Parliament) and Nordea Bank Abp

18 Mar 2025 · Financial Data Access Regulation

Meeting with Pierre Pimpie (Member of the European Parliament)

16 Oct 2024 · Présentation du programme FIDA

Meeting with Rasmus Andresen (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

14 Oct 2024 · FiDA

Meeting with Kinga Kollár (Member of the European Parliament)

11 Sept 2024 · FIDA

Meeting with Eero Heinäluoma (Member of the European Parliament)

11 Sept 2024 · Current Affairs

Meeting with Auke Zijlstra (Member of the European Parliament) and Acumen Public Affairs

10 Sept 2024 · FIDA

Meeting with Aura Salla (Member of the European Parliament)

10 Sept 2024 · EU Payment Services & open banking

Meeting with Ville Niinistö (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

22 Jan 2024 · Financial Data Access

Response to Open finance framework

1 Nov 2023

Insurely welcomes the Commissions proposal on FIDA. Paving the way forward on how to address data sharing, consumer consent, and data privacy are key to establishing a successful framework. Insurely believes that the following elements should be taken into account to ensure alignment with the needs of consumers and businesses: The Commission got it right on the breadth of the scope. By providing a wide scope (Article 2) of data sharing, innovations will be unlocked across many financial categories. This type of data sharing should cover all aspects of a consumers financial life, with the exclusion of illness and health insurance products. We do however see that those are critical insurance products for consumers, and should be added after proving that data sharing is safe for the average European citizen. The obligation to make data available to consumers is critical. The potential for innovation stemming from FIDA will only happen if Article 4 is upheld to its word. Free of charge for each citizen, electronic, in real time, mandatory, and only initiated by the consumer. Financial and insurance services providers should share a customers data only when given permission from the consumer: Third party providers (TPPs) are collecting insurance data on behalf of the consumer and sending it to another company of the consumers choice. TPPs play a central role in a data sharing ecosystem, unlocking consumer centric use cases, which create an overall better end-to-end experience for customers; however charging for collecting customer data on behalf of the customer would create a barrier for consumers in collecting their data and may remove any innovation that is not profit driven. Data sharing schemes are the ideal long term solution, but maybe a more practical short term approach can be taken to minimize change for data holders. Schemes in which data holders agree on a data standard for all data points is an ideal future state to work towards. However, we see that this will be tough to accomplish within the coming years. We promote an alternative approach which minimizes work/effort for data holders, shortens time to implementation, and allows for more focused schemes to be created when the market conditions require it. We advocate for letting the data users (supported by FISPs) do the hardest part of the job, standardizing the data. In this approach, data users will just have to make customer data available in the format each company has the data in, on some type of real time interface (API or a user interface), and then let the data users /FISPs do the standardization work. Data users/ FISPs will effectively blaze the trail of financial data sharing, creating clarity on which use cases are most popular, which data points are needed for those use cases, and even creating templates for how to harmonize data in each market. Data holders can learn from these experiences and create schemes at a future date, for cases/ data categories which are most popular; incentivized by the desire to lower market prices for data sharing. Fees may be a good instrument for ensuring compliance, however they should just cover operating expenses of the FIDA APIs for data holders. We agree that fees to data holders is a balanced approach to development and governance cost, if combined with sanctions for breaching FIDA regulations. In our preferred scheme approach, we don't see that it is reasonable for data holders to charge for access to data, since they won't be spending many resources to make the data available. When data holders form schemes, and spend resources standardizing the data, then fees can be reflective of the investment they made. Some questions which arise when thinking about the impact of fees are: How will we ensure that costs are not passed onto consumers? How do we ensure that data holders dont use fees as a tool to limit competition?
Read full response

Meeting with Eero Heinäluoma (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

13 Oct 2023 · FIDA

Meeting with Frances Fitzgerald (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

26 Sept 2023 · FIDA

Meeting with Florian Denis (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness) and Acumen Public Affairs

13 Dec 2022 · Open Finance Framework