After a bank scam, the court ruled that the telecom operator must pay

Scams involving fake bank advisors have been on the rise in France for several years. In these well-established scams, victims receive a call seemingly from their bank and are tricked into providing sensitive information.

Until now, responsibility has mainly fallen on banks or the customers themselves, but a recent decision by the Paris Judicial Court could well change things…

A classic scam involving fake bank advisors…

The case dates back to November 2023. A customer received a call seemingly from her bank. The displayed number does indeed match the one printed on the back of her bank card, a fraudulent technique known as "spoofing." On the phone, the scammer presents himself as an advisor tasked with reporting a fraudulent payment. To bolster the conversation's credibility, he even mentions a recent purchase made by the customer. Convinced she is speaking to a legitimate person, the victim follows the instructions and enters her username and password on her phone. A few days later, she discovers that two fraudulent transfers have been made to her account, totaling nearly €9,000. She then contacts her bank to request a refund. However, the bank refuses, claiming that the customer was negligent. The victim then decided to take legal action.

The telecom operator implicated by the bank

During the proceedings, the bank chose to implicate the client's telephone operator, and according to the institution, the operator should have prevented the fraudulent call, since the displayed number corresponded to that of the bank.

For its part, the Paris Judicial Court followed this reasoning, and in its ruling, it determined that the client had not committed any "gross negligence." In particular, she contacted her bank quickly after discovering the fraud and was deceived by the appearance of the institution's official number.

The bank was therefore ordered to reimburse the victim €8,861. But the judge goes further: he considers that the telecom operator must guarantee this sum to the bank. In other words, it is ultimately the operator who will have to bear the cost of the fraud.

A decision linked to the Naegelen Law?

This conviction rests largely on the Naegelen Law of July 24, 2020. This law requires telecom operators to implement number authentication systems in order to detect fraudulent calls and spoofed numbers.

In this case, the events took place after this obligation came into effect. The court therefore considers that the operator should have been able to identify the spoofing and block the call, especially since the number in question belonged to a banking institution considered sensitive.

The operator, for its part, disputes this interpretation and has appealed, arguing that the technical system was still being deployed at that time.

Towards a new liability for operators?

If this decision were to be upheld on appeal, it could set a legal precedent. Telecom operators could be called upon more frequently in cases of scams based on number spoofing.

However, liability will not be automatic. The judges reiterate that the victim must not have committed gross negligence, such as validating suspicious payment transactions. This case, however, marks a shift in how bank fraud is addressed by the justice system, broadening the chain of responsibility beyond just the banks and the victims…