Multilateral development banks (MDBs), as institutions with broad-ranging immunities, have over time developed distinct conceptions and frameworks of accountability as towards those who are negatively impacted by their projects. We argue that MDBs’ understandings of accountability, and the policies, procedures, and mechanisms through which affected groups may seek account and redress, are ill-suited to address the impacts of these institutions’ digitalization projects. As MDBs’ accountability frameworks arose in response to harms from physical infrastructure projects, they are temporally and spatially oriented towards physical, enumerated risks, and those considered “affected” and thus entitled to demand account and redress are delineated by narrow localized geographies. In addition, longstanding limitations of MDBs’ independent accountability mechanisms generate serious obstacles to access. As digital technologies are becoming central to MDBs’ projects, and MDBs are increasingly funding “digital transformation”, critical misalignments are arising between MDBs’ narrow approaches to accountability and the far-ranging impacts of digitalization. Building on pre-existing pathologies of MDBs’ accountability frameworks, and highlighting new challenges posed by digitalization, we argue that a reconceptualization of MDBs’ accountability is required. We offer a series of observations in that direction, beginning from entirely different answers to the questions: accountability for what, to whom, and through which processes?