Not upheld: disputed transactions / unauthorised payments complaint against J.P. Morgan Europe Limited trading as Chase

Decision detail

Summary

Mr K complained that Chase should refund disputed transactions totalling £854.25 made via Apple Pay whilst he was in an overseas club, claiming he was coerced, deceived, intoxicated, and unable to consent. He alleged that venue staff physically took his phone, used his Face ID without his meaningful participation, and misled him about transaction amounts. Chase declined the claim because the transactions were confirmed as genuine through Mr K's biometric authorisation via the app. The ombudsman upheld Chase's position, finding that Mr K authorised the transactions under the Payment Services Regulations 2017, as the formal procedure for payment was completed by him or someone acting on his behalf, and consent under the PSRs does not require awareness of amounts or the ability to remember the transactions.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Under the Payment Services Regulations 2017, Chase is liable only if Mr K did not authorise the payments. The ombudsman found that Mr K authorised the transactions by completing the agreed procedure (using Face ID via Apple Pay), even though he was intoxicated, misled about amounts, and did not initiate the payments himself. The concept of consent under the PSRs is formal and does not require awareness of the transaction details or the ability to remember them. Being tricked or coerced does not invalidate consent under the relevant regulations. Chase acted fairly by removing the card suspension after Mr K's positive biometric confirmation via the app.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website