News Made Clear · Loading…
News Made Clear · Loading…

Kifid rejected the customer’s claim despite finding that the six Apple Pay transactions were unauthorised. Its disputes committee also set out a new test for gross negligence in such cases.
Produced with in-depth AI research, source-based writing and a language correction. Sources and uncertainties accompany the article.
Review information is loading.
A Rabobank customer must bear the loss of €3,515 taken through Apple Pay after her phone was stolen, the Dutch financial complaints body Kifid has ruled. Its disputes committee found that the payments were unauthorised but concluded that she had been grossly negligent in keeping her security codes safe.
The customer said her locked phone had been stolen from her closed handbag at a party while she was on holiday in Ibiza. She reported the theft to police and disputed six payments made in October 2025. Rabobank challenged her account that the payments had been made without her consent.
The committee said the bank had shown that two transactions were authenticated using the phone’s passcode, but that this did not in itself prove the customer had consented. For the other four, the bank had not provided sufficient evidence of authentication. The committee therefore treated all six as unauthorised.
Banks are generally required to refund unauthorised payments. Exceptions include fraud and deliberate or grossly negligent breaches of a customer’s security obligations.
Kifid’s committee said the bank normally bears the burden of proving gross negligence, but that the customer was required to give more detail about events within her knowledge. She had not explained how another person obtained her phone’s security codes, it said, so it assumed she had seriously failed to keep them secret. The decision did not establish how another person gained access.
In the ruling, Kifid’s disputes committee set out a new test for gross negligence: whether a payer did or failed to do something that a reasonable and careful payer would never do or fail to do. It said the test was intended for all cases of unauthorised payments, including bank-impersonation scams, and that each case must be assessed on its circumstances.
The decision, issued on 29 October and published on 5 November, is binding. The committee said an appeal to Kifid’s appeals board was available within six weeks of the ruling being sent.
3 listed sources · explore evidence, limitations and provenance.
Sign in to give this article a thumbs up or down.
Private test discussion. Comments are readers’ views and are not yet automatically fact-checked. Editing is available for 60 seconds after posting.
Ask your question with @newsmadeclear or @nmc. You may receive 5 starter credits once after checks on your confirmed email and browser. The offer is once per person; extra accounts do not entitle you to another bonus. There is no monthly refill. Previous balances remain. A question costs 1 credit, including additional research you permit. A source you provide that demonstrably improves the article earns 5 credits. If your question helps Astra find the missing source and improve the article, you receive 1 credit back.
Sign in with a confirmed reader account and choose a username to read comments and participate.
Sorting applies to top-level comments; replies remain oldest first. New comments and likes can change the order. Refresh for the current ranking.
Loading comments…
Interested in advertising with News Made Clear? Explore our pilot.