In June 2026, Saul contacted the bank and requested a new debit card, which the bank issued. After using the card for gambling transactions, Saul complained that the bank should not have issued the card, given he had told it about his addiction. He sought reimbursement of his gambling losses, which totalled $1,500.

Our investigation

Banks do not generally have a duty to prevent customers from making unwise financial decisions. However, where a customer has disclosed a vulnerability and requested additional support, a bank must act reasonably in responding to that request.

After Saul told the bank about his addiction, it put notes on his profile and added extra checks to make it more difficult for him to get a debit card. When he did request a debit card, frontline staff did not issue one immediately. Instead, they referred the request to the bank’s specialist support team, which contacted Saul to confirm that he wanted to remove the extra safeguards put in place. Saul confirmed he did, so the bank issued the card in accordance with his instructions. Once issued, Saul did not have immediate access to the physical card and its digital equivalent. Six days passed between requesting and receiving the physical card, and two more days passed before he used it to make the first gambling transactions.

We were satisfied the bank acted reasonably in the circumstances. It did not have to offer a permanent restriction preventing Saul from accessing debit cards with the ability to make online gambling transactions. It had clearly explained the support it could provide, as well as the limitations of that support, including that it could not permanently prevent him from getting another debit card in the future.

Outcome

Saul withdrew his complaint.