Lomas de Zamora Appeals Chamber Orders Bank to Refund USD 7,000 and Pay Moral Damages in Phishing Case
A banking customer in Argentina who fell victim to a sophisticated phishing scam after inquiring about supermarket discounts on Facebook has secured a partial legal victory. The Civil and Commercial Appeals Chamber of Lomas de Zamora ordered the financial institution to restore USD 7,000 sold without authorization, refund 32,000 pesos, and pay 425,000 pesos for moral damages, establishing a shared responsibility framework between the user and the digital platform provider.
How a Facebook Inquiry Escalated Into Remote Digital Fraud
The legal file traces back to September 16, 2021. The 36-year-old claimant sought information via Facebook regarding a 20% supermarket discount advertised by the bank. A private response arrived from a profile sporting the official corporate logo, offering a directory of customer service options.
When her specific query did not fit the automated menu, she provided a phone number. Minutes later, an individual claiming to be a bank representative called her mobile phone. The caller offered remote assistance to resolve the issue.
Believing the interaction was legitimate due to the official branding on the social media profile, she surrendered her online banking credentials and security tokens. Within moments, the fraudsters transferred 32,000 pesos to an external account and liquidated her USD 7,000 savings into local currency, though the subsequent transfer of those converted funds failed and remained stuck in her local savings box. She immediately lost access to her account, prompted a block on her digital products, and launched legal and administrative complaints.
Judicial Balancing of Digital Duty and User Caution
The financial institution rejected the claims, arguing that the security breach resulted entirely from social engineering and the voluntary surrender of confidential access tokens by the user. The bank maintained that its systems functioned without failure.
During the initial ruling issued on July 8, 2024, the lower court established that a consumer relationship existed. The judge emphasized that banks carry a heightened security duty given their technical and professional dominance in digital channels, meaning they cannot completely insulate themselves from the risks of electronic tools simply by following baseline central bank regulations.
However, the initial court assigned partial liability to the plaintiff. The magistrate noted that the user proceeded despite noticing that the Facebook profile contacting her had been created less than an hour earlier, demanding a higher threshold of personal caution.
The first-instance judgment ordered the return of the 32,000 pesos and the restitution of the USD 7,000 converted at official exchange rates, but initially denied moral and punitive damages.
Appeals Chamber Adjusts Compensation for Non-Patrimonial Harm
The claimant appealed the denial of moral damages. The higher court agreed that the unauthorized asset liquidation, account lockout, and the protracted burden of administrative and judicial filings extended far beyond ordinary contractual inconveniences.
The chamber quantified the non-patrimonial consequences at 850,000 pesos. Because the shared liability ruling remained intact, the bank was ordered to cover 50 percent of that amount, totaling 425,000 pesos alongside digital passive interest rates.
The tribunal upheld the rejection of punitive damages, finding no evidence of a deliberately indifferent corporate attitude, particularly because the bank had previously published anti-fraud campaigns and assisted in freezing accounts post-incident. Shifting away from first-instance determinations, the chamber mandated that the financial institution cover all procedural costs for both stages of the litigation, as the plaintiff successfully prevailed on the substantive merits of her recovery claim.
