Took a taxi for 10 euros and was charged 2,555: this is the court's decision
An Israeli tourist in France claimed that a taxi driver scammed her and charged her card 2,555 euros instead of ten. The court rejected her lawsuit against the credit card company CAL and determined that the company acted properly since the passenger entered a secret code. The judge ruled that the precautionary measures were reasonable and ordered the plaintiff to pay expenses.
The Small Claims Court in Tel Aviv rejected a lawsuit by a passenger who demanded that the credit card company CAL refund her 2,555 euros following an unusual charge for a taxi ride in France. Judge Anatot ruled that the company was not negligent in approving the transaction and ordered the plaintiff to pay 600 shekels in legal expenses.
The plaintiff was in France and took a short taxi ride for an agreed cost of ten euros. She asked to pay in cash, but the driver claimed he had no change. The passenger presented her credit card and entered the secret code. The driver claimed the transaction failed and asked her to enter it again on another device. Only after she left the taxi did she receive text messages from the credit card company and realized that two transactions of 2,555 euros each had been made.
The first transaction was approved and the second was automatically canceled. The plaintiff contacted CAL and demanded the cancellation of the charge. She claimed the company was negligent in approving such a high amount for a taxi ride in a foreign country and should have required an additional verification code. The credit card company's representative explained in court that the transaction was classified as safe because the card was physically presented and the secret code was entered. The company added that a charge of thousands of euros under the taxi category can also appear in transactions related to organized tours. The automatic system rejected the second transaction due to the proximity in time and the identical amount for the same business.
Judge Anatot rejected the lawsuit and determined that the plaintiff did not prove grounds entitling her to a refund. The verdict noted that the credit card company acted justifiably when distinguishing between a physical transaction with a secret code and remote transactions. The judge wrote that the precautionary measures taken by the company were reasonable and appropriate and noted the company's efforts with international entities to try to recover the funds. Despite understanding the harm to the plaintiff, the court determined that it is possible that in her distraction she did not notice the amount entered into the payment device. The lawsuit was rejected and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the credit card company 600 shekels in expenses.
