[lbotos]

Yes, but I'm sure most employment contracts say something to the effect of "you will not grant unauthorized access to company property or systems."

And the fact that the employee was paid, shows that the interest was in the employee's favor, not the businesses. (conflict of interest)

It's the same as if a salesperson said "I'll give you $500 to help me get into your office building, and navigate me to the payroll department's desk. I just wanna understand the layout for a meeting I want to have in a few weeks."

[astura]

They say their lawyers approved it, so I assume they verified they were getting credentials from higher ups who had the authorization and not just rank and file employees.

>Plaid told Motherboard 12 people participated in the test and that it was vetted by the company's legal counsel. Plaid added that participants' login credentials have since been deleted and that the test was only open to friends and family of existing Plaid employees.

[lbotos]

This sentence is loosely worded. Plaid's lawyers may have approved it, but did the lawyers of the company systems that were accessed approve it?

I cannot imagine the company's I've worked for allowing a non-partner 3rd party to pay me, an individual, for access to company systems, let alone approving it even if I wasn't getting paid...

Additionally, as a Senior Manager in my org, I could not accept a payment like this as it's a conflict of interest. It's even more egregious if plaid "got approval from a higher up for $500"