Not upheld: Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against Skrill Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Miss R complained that Skrill Limited refused to refund money she lost when gambling with an unlicensed casino that refused to pay out her £3,500 winnings. She argued Skrill should have raised chargebacks because the casino used an incorrect merchant categorisation code to bypass her GAMSTOP self-exclusion registration, and that Skrill should have identified her as vulnerable. The ombudsman rejected the complaint, finding that Miss R knowingly made gambling transactions and received the services she paid for, so no fraud chargeback was available. Mastercard confirmed no chargeback rights exist for gambling transactions regardless of incorrect codes. The ombudsman also found Skrill had no duty to police merchants or identify fraudulent activity, and the payment patterns did not suggest vulnerability requiring intervention.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Miss R received the gambling services she paid for, so a fraud chargeback would not have been successful. Mastercard directly confirmed to the FOS that no chargeback rights exist for gambling transactions and no chargeback codes apply where incorrect MCCs are used. Regarding vulnerability, although firms should identify vulnerable customers proactively, the payment values and patterns were not unusually high or suspicious enough to require intervention. Skrill had no duty to police merchants or investigate whether they were licensed or operating fraudulently.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website