Not upheld: gambling block functionality and failure to identify vulnerability complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr V complained that Revolut's gambling block failed to prevent gambling transactions and that Revolut should have identified his gambling vulnerability earlier. Mr V had applied a gambling block in January 2025, disabled it in June, and re-enabled it in July 2025. He complained on 30 July 2025 about gambling transactions not being blocked. The ombudsman found that Revolut's gambling block works by identifying transactions with specific merchant category codes (MCCs) and is not guaranteed to block all gambling transactions, a limitation Revolut disclosed on their website. The ombudsman also found that Revolut was not aware of Mr V's vulnerability until his complaint and does not manually monitor accounts. When Revolut became aware of the vulnerability, they offered appropriate support. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Revolut's gambling block operates by identifying transactions with gambling-related MCCs, which is not guaranteed to block all gambling transactions. Revolut clearly disclosed this limitation on their website. Mr V did not disclose his gambling vulnerability to Revolut until his complaint in July 2025, and Revolut does not manually monitor accounts. The ombudsman found it unreasonable to expect Revolut to identify vulnerability based solely on the application of a gambling block. When Revolut became aware of the vulnerability, they offered appropriate support. The ombudsman also found it fair that Mr V retained the ability to disable the gambling block himself, as it is a deterrent tool rather than a cure, and it would be unfair to deny Mr V the ability to make his own decisions about disabling it.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website