A coalition of banking industry associations, including the ABA and BPI, is pressuring the SEC to roll back its rule requiring public companies to disclose material cybersecurity breaches within four days.

The rule was put in place to ensure investors are informed and victims can take timely protective action. The lobbying groups cite six reasons for their appeal—all of which fall apart under scrutiny and appear more aimed at shielding financial institutions from accountability than protecting stakeholders.

Their arguments range from claims that disclosure interferes with national security and investigations, to fears of insurance impacts and chilled internal communication. However, the reality is that the 8-K disclosure requirement simply demands a non-sensitive summary for public awareness. It doesn't disrupt investigations or endanger systems—it provides fairness, transparency, and a necessary check against insider trading and delayed responses. Claims that disclosure could empower attackers or confuse companies are either exaggerated or plainly false.

The banking industry’s true motive is clear: control the narrative, delay fallout, and minimize reputational damage. Since the rule’s implementation, there’s been no meaningful harm—only improved transparency and accountability. Efforts to weaken it are not in the public’s interest. Instead, they reflect a desire to preserve secrecy and avoid investment in proper cybersecurity practices, all while undermining public trust and security in the digital economy.