Negotiating the Participant-Data Clause: Recordkeeping Agreements for Plan Sponsors in the 2026 RFP Cycle

Marcia S. Wagner
Marcia S. Wagner | The Wagner Law Group

Marcia S. Wagner advises fiduciary committees, recordkeepers, broker-dealers, banks, and other financial services firms on fiduciary issues, prohibited transactions, and compliance programs. She also counsels plan sponsors on qualified plans, 403(b) and 457 plans, multiple employer plans (MEPs), IRAs, and ESOPs. She founded The Wagner Law Group, based in Boston, roughly 30 years ago and has practiced employee benefits law for about 40 years.

Live Video-Broadcast: November 16, 2026

2 hour CLE

Tuition: $195.00
Subscribe to Federal Bar Association CLE Pass...
Co-Sponsored by myLawCLE
Get this course, plus over 1,000+ of live webinars.
Learn More
Training 5 or more people?

Sign-up for a law firm subscription plan and each attorney in the firm receives free access to all CLE Programs

Program Summary

 

Your Recordkeeper Contract Is Silent on Participant Data. That Silence Is a Fiduciary Exposure

Retirement plan recordkeepers are increasingly monetizing participant data through cross-selling, data analytics, and third-party sharing arrangements. GAO-26-107271 examined recordkeeper data practices, yet DOL has not committed to guidance. Until it does, the recordkeeping agreement is where plan sponsors set the limits.

Stay silent on data use, and the unresolved ERISA plan-asset question becomes fiduciary exposure. Skip the monitoring file, and the Williams-Linzey monitoring-failure theory reaches the committee. Ignore DOL Cybersecurity Compliance Assistance Release No. 2024-01, and your service provider agreements go unverified. Accept cross-selling carve-outs, affiliate sharing, and post-termination retention, and the recordkeeper writes the rules.

You walk out with a map of current regulatory and litigation leverage points for contract negotiations. You also get a clause-by-clause drafting framework covering permitted-use restrictions, audit rights, breach notification, data portability, and unilateral-action limits. Finally, you get a fiduciary committee monitoring-file checklist ready for the 2026 RFP cycle. This is negotiating judgment and drafting work product, not a doctrine survey.

Key topics to be discussed:

  • Regulatory Gap Leverage
    Use GAO-26-107271's findings on recordkeeper data practices, and DOL's non-commitment to guidance, as leverage when negotiating recordkeeper contracts today.
  • Plan-Asset Exposure
    Assess the fiduciary exposure created when a recordkeeper shares participant data without contractual restriction while the ERISA plan-asset question remains unresolved.
  • Settlement-Tested Restrictions
    Translate the data-use restrictions in court-approved settlements, and the Williams-Linzey monitoring-failure theory, into concrete drafting obligations and RFP contract demands.
  • Recordkeeper Resistance Points
    Push back on cross-selling carve-outs, affiliate sharing, and post-termination retention, and close the governance gap the Fidelity and Schwab credential-access restrictions exposed.
  • Clause-By-Clause Drafting
    Draft the six provisions every data clause must address, including permitted-use restrictions, audit rights, breach notification, data portability, and unilateral-action limits.
  • Monitoring File Defense
    Build a fiduciary committee monitoring file, with annual certifications and audit cadences, that documents DOL Compliance Assistance Release No. 2024-01 verification and withstands a monitoring-failure claim.

This course is co-sponsored with myLawCLE.

Date / Time: November 16, 2026

  • 2:30 pm – 4:40 pm Eastern
  • 1:30 pm – 3:40 pm Central
  • 12:30 pm – 2:40 pm Mountain
  • 11:30 am – 1:40 pm Pacific

Closed-captioning available

Speakers

Marcia S. Wagner, Founder and Managing Partner | The Wagner Law Group

Marcia S. Wagner advises fiduciary committees, recordkeepers, broker-dealers, banks, and other financial services firms on fiduciary issues, prohibited transactions, and compliance programs. She also counsels plan sponsors on qualified plans, 403(b) and 457 plans, multiple employer plans (MEPs), IRAs, and ESOPs. She founded The Wagner Law Group, based in Boston, roughly 30 years ago and has practiced employee benefits law for about 40 years.

  • Education & Credentials

Ms. Wagner graduated summa cum laude from Cornell University, where she was elected to Phi Beta Kappa, and is a graduate of Harvard Law School.

  • Recognition & Leadership

She was appointed Chair of the Employee Plans subcommittee of the IRS Tax Exempt & Government Entities Advisory Committee and received the agency’s highest honor. She is a Fellow of the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel and sits on its Board of Governors, and she serves on the Board of Directors of the American Benefits Council. Her more than 50 professional honors include induction into the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly Hall of Fame in July 2025.

  • Professional Involvement

Her writing on plan data protection includes “Cybersecurity and Retirement Plans: What Plan Sponsors Should Do” (2020) and “The DOL’s New Cybersecurity Audits and Informal Guidance” (2021), and she authored multiple editions of Quick Reference to HIPAA Compliance (Aspen Publishers, 2004–2016). Across hundreds of articles and 24 books, her titles include the co-authored Mandated Benefits compliance guides (Wolters Kluwer) and Advising Small Businesses: Qualified Retirement Plans.
She writes a regular column in 401(k) Advisor, contributes to PLANADVISER, PLANSPONSOR, SHRM, and NAPA outlets, and is frequently quoted in The Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times. She lectures widely, has given governmental testimony, and has appeared on Fox, CNN, Bloomberg, and NBC.

  • Experience

Ms. Wagner represents plans and the financial institutions that service them in DOL, IRS, and PBGC audits and has negotiated closing agreements. She has obtained DOL advisory opinions, information letters, and prohibited transaction exemptions, and her practice includes HIPAA privacy and security, fiduciary compliance, and independent fiduciary services.
She serves as an expert witness in ERISA litigation; one court cited her testimony as pivotal and described her experience with 403(b) plans as impressive. Her plan sponsor work spans plan design, drafting, compliance, and tax planning under ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code, along with executive compensation, retiree medical benefits, plan terminations, mergers and acquisitions, and de-risking pension liabilities.

Agenda

SESSION 1 – What Recordkeepers Will Actually Sign: Participant-Data Restrictions in 2026 | Marcia S. Wagner | 2:30pm – 3:30pm

This session examines the current regulatory, litigation, and market landscape governing how retirement plan recordkeepers use, share, and restrict participant data — and what plan sponsors can realistically demand in 2026 RFP negotiations. Attorneys will learn the specific contract provisions recordkeepers resist, the GAO and DOL frameworks creating negotiating leverage, and the litigation precedents shaping what courts and settling parties have treated as acceptable data-use restrictions. Attendees leave with a clear map of what is legally at stake, what contractual silence means under current law, and where the unresolved ERISA plan-asset question creates fiduciary exposure.

BREAK | 3:30pm – 3:40pm

SESSION 2 – Drafting Participant-Data Clauses and the Fiduciary Committee’s Monitoring File | Marcia S. Wagner | 3:40pm – 4:40pm

This session teaches plan sponsors and their ERISA counsel how to draft enforceable participant-data clauses in recordkeeper agreements and how to build the fiduciary committee’s monitoring file to document ongoing compliance. Attorneys will work through each structural element of a data clause — permitted-use restrictions, audit rights, breach notification, data portability, and unilateral-action limits — against the backdrop of the Williams-Linzey litigation, DOL Cybersecurity Compliance Assistance Release No. 2024-01, and the 2022 ERISA Advisory Council report. Attendees leave with a clause-by-clause drafting framework and a monitoring-file checklist ready for the 2026 RFP cycle.

Credits

Alaska

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through Alaska’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity.
Alabama

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Arkansas

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Arizona

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

California

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Colorado

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Connecticut

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

District of Columbia

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Delaware

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Florida

Approved via Attorney Submission
2 General Hours

Receive CLE credit in Florida via attorney submission.
Georgia

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Hawaii

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Iowa

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Idaho

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Illinois

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Indiana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Kansas

Pending CLE Approval
2 Substantive

Kentucky

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Louisiana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Massachusetts

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maryland

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maine

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Michigan

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Minnesota

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Missouri

Approved for CLE Credits
2.4 General

Mississippi

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Montana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

North Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

North Dakota

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through North Dakota’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity. Section 1, Policy 1.14
Nebraska

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

myLawCLE reports attendance to Nebraska on each attorney’s behalf for all programs. Please do not self-report.
New Hampshire

Approved for CLE Credits
120 General minutes

As of July 1, 2014, the NHMCLE Board no longer provides pre- or post-approval of courses. Attendees must self-determine whether a program is eligible for credit, and self-report their attendance online at www.nhbar.org, based on qualification provisions of Rule 53.
New Jersey

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New Jersey’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity, except for the courses required under BCLE Reg. 201:2
New Mexico

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Nevada

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

New York

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New York’s Approved Jurisdiction Group “B”.
Ohio

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Oklahoma

Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General

Oregon

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Pennsylvania

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Rhode Island

Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General

South Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

South Dakota

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Tennessee

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Texas

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Utah

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Virginia

Not Eligible
2 General Hours

Vermont

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Washington

Approved via Attorney Submission
2 Law & Legal Hours

Receive CLE credit in Washington via attorney submission.
Wisconsin

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

West Virginia

Pending CLE Approval
2.4 General

Wyoming

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

More CLE Webinars
Upcoming CLE Webinars
Recovering Elder Financial Exploitation Losses
Recovering Elder Financial Exploitation Losses Tue, October 20, 2026
Live Webcast
iPad for Lawyers: The Complete Mobile Practice Toolkit
iPad for Lawyers: The Complete Mobile Practice Toolkit Fri, October 23, 2026
On-Demand
Live Replay