Not upheld: refusal to raise chargeback and failure to block gambling transactions complaint against FORISGFS UK Limited trading as Crypto.com

Decision detail

Summary

Mr T complained that Crypto.com failed to protect him as a vulnerable consumer with a gambling problem and refused to raise a chargeback for approximately £3,350 sterling and €1,206.57 euro in gambling transactions made via misleading merchant names. The ombudsman found that Crypto.com acted fairly because the merchants' MCCs did not indicate gambling activity, Mr T's vulnerability was only disclosed after the transactions were made, and the chargeback request did not meet Visa's scheme rules. The ombudsman noted that gambling websites deliberately use incorrect codes to circumvent blocks, which is not the financial provider's responsibility. Crypto.com has since voluntarily blocked the specific merchants to protect Mr T.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Crypto.com acted fairly because: (1) the merchants' MCCs did not indicate gambling activity, so Crypto.com could not reasonably have known Mr T was gambling; (2) Mr T's vulnerability was only disclosed after the transactions were made; (3) the chargeback request did not meet Visa's scheme rules as Mr T authorised the payments and received the services; (4) there was insufficient evidence that the merchants were assigned incorrect MCCs; and (5) gambling websites deliberately use incorrect codes to circumvent blocks, which is not Crypto.com's responsibility.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website