Not upheld: Card / payment disputes complaint against Yonder Technology Ltd trading as Yonder

Decision detail

Summary

Miss S disputed a transaction made via Google Pay on her mobile phone while she was on holiday abroad and had left her phone charging unattended in a public area. She claimed the transaction was unauthorised and made by an unknown third party. Yonder declined to refund her, arguing the transaction was authorised. The ombudsman found that completing a Google Pay transaction required multiple authentication steps beyond device possession, and there was no evidence of security compromise or a plausible mechanism by which an unauthorised person could have completed the payment. The ombudsman concluded it was more likely than not that Miss S authorised the transaction or allowed it to be made, and therefore did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Miss S was not in physical possession of her phone, completing a Google Pay transaction would require additional authentication (passcode or biometrics) beyond device possession. No evidence showed the device security was compromised or that an unauthorised third party could plausibly have obtained the passcode. The transaction location aligned with other genuine transactions, and the fact that no further transactions were attempted suggested this was not typical fraudster behaviour. Therefore, it was more likely than not that Miss S authorised the transaction or allowed it to be made.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website