[ARCHIVE] Issue of ADI brands and Endpoint URIs

Archived 2024-03-21. See Register Guide, Brands in the Consumer Data Right Ecosystem

Question

Clarification is needed on the issue of ADI brands and endpoint URIs in reference to Rule 5.25(1)(b)(iii): 

• Do we need one endpoint per sub-brand?

eg: bank.com.au/cdr/{brand-name}/GetProducts

• OR is it acceptable to pass brand as parameter?

eg: bank.com.au/cdr/GetProducts?brand='xx'

• OR return all data as a shared list identified by brand

eg: bank.com.au/cdr/GetProducts ==> {"brandA", "product-data", "brandB", "product-data"}

Is it up to each data holder to determine which to implement, are all required, or, a subset of these approaches?

Answer

The standards provide for two levels of branding in the Standards:

1. A brand that appears to a customer like a standalone bank with its own digital presence, login credentials, etc. This is a common scenario in the banking industry. UBank and BankWest are both examples of brands of this nature.
2. A brand that is used to differentiate and sell a product but the servicing of the product occurs under the banner of a larger brand. This is the scenario where a brand may be used to sell a product but, once originated, the customer's servicing relationship will be with the master brand.

The classification of brands is a matter for the Data Holder but the intention of the standards is that brands of type 1 would be a separate entry in the register with independent base URIs and brands of type 2 would be dealt with via tags in the product reference payloads.

A good rule of thumb that has been discussed in multiple forums is that the selection of brand type should be aligned to the understanding of the customer. If a customer is used to logging into the internet banking site for Brand X then Brand X should probably be considered a type 1 brand as described above.

See

• Standards Maintenance Issue 187