By filing a complaint against 12 banks a year ago, UFC-Que Choisir contributed to accelerating the implementation of new rules, presented on Tuesday by the Banque de France, for the reimbursement of fraud suffered by bank customers. The consumer association points to progress, but considers that it will be necessary to go further.
A good start, which calls for regulatory follow-up: this is essentially the point of view of UFC-Que Choisir on the new rules for reimbursement of fraud published Tuesday by the Observatory for the Security of Payment Means (OSMP) of the Bank of France.
At the forefront of the subject, the consumer association was one of the participants in the working group which drew up the 13 recommendations addressed to banks and their users. She had also filed a complaint, in June 2022, against 12 of them. A way of alerting to the immense difficulties encountered by certain victims of fraudulent debits to obtain compensation from their bank, as provided for by the regulations in the event of unauthorized transactions.
Non-reimbursement of bank fraud: what your bank is no longer allowed to do
The pressure on the banks
” It’s better than nothing. These recommendations are not a revolution, but they will allow, at least, a harmonization of the practices of the banks”, welcomes Mélanie Saldanha, lawyer specialized in banking and insurance at UFC-Que Choisir. Until now, the same type of fraud could lead very different reactions depending on the establishmentsfrom immediate and total refund to categorical refusal.
The text unveiled on Tuesday clarifies in particular certain points which were debated. The main one concerns strong authentication, this process used to secure remote payments by imposing, in addition to traditional identifiers, a second authentication factor, generally a confirmation in the bank’s mobile application. One of the recommendations confirms that “ strong authentication is not infallible and cannot be used as the sole proof of a refusal to reimburse a fraud”, develops Mélanie Saldanha.
“Banks will have to provide more substantiated answers, with the reason for the refusal and supporting documents…”, continues the lawyer. Clearly, stop automatically rejecting reimbursement requests as soon as strong authentication has been used. They should, on the contrary, carry out investigations. Check, in particular, whether the fraudulent payment was indeed initiated by the victim. “Banks have more advanced elements than you might think,” confirms Mélanie Saldanha. “They are able, for example, to know from which computer or which mobile the payment was made. »
The other advance concerns the establishment ofa period of 30 days to carry out these investigations. A time after which, if it is not able to prove that the victim was dishonest or negligent, the banks will have to reimburse. Because today, “some banks play for usury, hoping that the victim gets tired and throws in the towel. »
False advisor scam: the bank refuses to reimburse… is it legal?
A hoped-for integration into the law
For UFC-Que Choisir, the framework set by the Banque de France is only a good start. “No one is fooled. Fraudsters already have a head start and will try to keep it,” notes Mélanie Saldanha. The consumer association will be vigilant on the implementation, on the ground, of the new market recommendations. But it also hopes that the future revision of the European directive on payment services (PSD3), currently being negotiated in Brussels, will incorporate into law certain protective measures for victims of fraud.