- Cycore Insights
- Posts
- The Hidden Compliance Trap in Banking-as-a-Service Partnerships
The Hidden Compliance Trap in Banking-as-a-Service Partnerships
Your BaaS partner promised they’d handle compliance. They didn’t tell you the whole truth. Here’s exactly what your sponsor bank covers and the gaps you’re responsible for, whether your partnership agreement says so or not.
Kevin Barona
March 12, 2026
Happy Thursday!
Welcome to Cycoresecure.com, your go-to partner for transforming security and compliance into effortless processes. Whether you're a startup or a growing tech company, we provide services to tackle your biggest security challenges, freeing you to focus on scaling your business with confidence. Let's secure your future together!
Make sure to follow our Cycore LinkedIn page and subscribe to receive updates on current events, trends, and industry news that matter to you
In Today's Rundown
Let’s dive right in.
You're reading the Cycore Insights newsletter.
Get exclusive coverage of cybersecurity and privacy delivered once a week.
Q1 earnings calls are wrapping up. Fintech companies are reviewing partnership performance. And a recurring theme is emerging: compliance gaps in BaaS relationships are costing them enterprise deals.
The source is almost always the same. A sales engineer gets asked about data retention policies during due diligence. A prospect’s security team requests an incident response plan. Someone on procurement asks who owns customer access management. The answer “our bank partner handles that” turns out to be wrong, or at least incomplete.
BaaS makes it easy to launch. It doesn’t make compliance someone else’s problem.
What Your Sponsor Bank Actually Covers vs. What You Still Own
Your sponsor bank holds the charter. That means they own the regulatory relationship with the FDIC, the Fed, or the OCC. They manage core banking infrastructure, deposit insurance, and the BSA/AML program for the banking layer.
What they don’t own: your application layer, your customer data, your incident response process, and your vendor relationships. The moment a customer interacts with your product before data ever reaches the bank’s infrastructure, you’re in scope.
Enterprise buyers and their security teams understand this distinction. When they ask about your security posture, they’re not asking about your bank partner’s SOC 2. They’re asking about yours.
The SOC 2 Controls Your BaaS Partner Won’t Touch
Even if your BaaS provider is SOC 2 certified, their report covers their infrastructure, not your product. Three areas consistently fall through the gap:
Data Retention
Your bank partner retains transaction records per their own regulatory requirements. What happens to customer data in your application, how long you store it, where, and under what access controls is your responsibility. Enterprise buyers with their own retention policies will ask for this in writing.
Customer Access Management
Who in your organization can access customer financial data? Under what conditions? With what logging? Your sponsor bank has controls for its systems. You need documented controls for your own. Auditors and enterprise procurement teams will ask to see them.
Incident Response for Your Layer
Your bank partner has an incident response plan. It covers their systems. If a breach or service disruption originates in your application or in a vendor you’ve integrated, you need your own IR plan that addresses notification timelines, escalation paths, and customer communication. “Our bank handles that” will not satisfy a SOC 2 auditor or a Fortune 500 procurement team.
How to Audit Your BaaS Provider Without Torpedoing the Relationship
The goal isn’t to become adversarial with your sponsor bank. It’s to understand exactly where their controls end so you can document where yours begin. A few concrete steps:
Request their SOC 2 Type II report and map the control descriptions to your own environment. Identify every control that references “customer” or “tenant” responsibilities; those are yours.
Ask for their shared responsibility matrix. If they don’t have one, that’s a gap you need to document yourself. Build a matrix that maps every major control category to either them, you, or shared.
Review their incident notification SLA. How quickly will they tell you about a breach affecting your customers? Does that timeline meet your own contractual obligations to enterprise buyers?
Frame the conversation as joint compliance readiness, not a vendor audit. Your bank partner benefits from you having clean controls, which reduces their regulatory risk, too.
Red Flags That Your Partnership Agreement Leaves You Exposed
Most BaaS partnership agreements are written to protect the bank. Review yours for these warning signs:
No defined data ownership clause. If the agreement doesn’t clearly state who owns customer data at each stage of the flow, assume an auditor will interpret it in the least favorable way possible.
Incident notification windows longer than 72 hours. GDPR and many enterprise contracts require breach notification within 72 hours. If your bank partner’s SLA is longer, you have a contractual gap.
No audit rights provision. If you can’t request evidence of your partner’s controls on reasonable notice, you can’t verify what you’re relying on, and you can’t prove it to your own auditors.
Compliance representations that reference only federal banking regulations. BaaS agreements often cover BSA/AML and not SOC 2, ISO 27001, or the security controls your enterprise customers actually ask about.
The Bottom Line
BaaS makes it fast to launch financial products. It doesn’t make compliance someone else’s problem.
Regulators held nine sponsor banks accountable in 2024 for the compliance gaps of their fintech partners. Enterprise buyers are asking harder questions about data ownership, incident response, and access controls. The companies closing deals aren’t the ones with the most sophisticated bank partnerships; they’re the ones who can clearly answer where their partner’s controls end and their own begin.
If you can’t answer that question today, the time to find out is before your next enterprise due diligence request, not during it.
Ready to map your BaaS compliance gaps before they cost you the next deal? Contact Cycore.
Security Insights
Nine BaaS Banks Received FDIC Consent Orders in 2024 Over Fintech Partnership Gaps (Banking Dive, Dec 2024)Banking Dive’s running list of consent orders documents at least nine banking-as-a-service institutions that received FDIC enforcement actions in 2024, nearly all citing deficiencies in third-party risk management, BSA/AML oversight, and fintech partner controls. Piermont Bank’s CEO publicly stated that every bank touching BaaS was receiving an enforcement action. The pattern is clear: regulators hold sponsor banks responsible for the compliance gaps of their fintech partners, and fintech companies that haven’t documented their own controls are creating liability for the banks they depend on.
State Regulators Are Now Issuing Their Own BaaS Enforcement Actions (PYMNTS, May 2025)California’s DFPI issued a solo consent order against Hatch Bank in May 2025 over AML and compliance failures tied to its fintech partnership model—the first BaaS enforcement action issued by a state agency without a parallel federal order. PYMNTS notes this may signal that state regulators in fintech-heavy jurisdictions like California and New York are preparing to take a more active role in oversight, independent of federal agencies. For fintech companies operating under BaaS arrangements, this means regulatory exposure is no longer limited to a single federal examiner.
Let's Build Trust
Work with us or follow along:
Cycore, builds enterprise-grade security, privacy and compliance programs for the modern organization. Partner with us.
Follow us on LinkedIn for security, privacy & compliance updates!
How else can we help? Feedback? Have a question? Reply to this email.
Know someone who would like this email? Forward it to a friend...
Your security & compliance ally,
Cycore Team