Bank not required to block future payments to one merchant

Categories:

Advice & information, Bank accounts, Instructions not followed,

Summary:

In September 2025, Louis asked his bank to stop any future payments he might make to an online casino. The bank said it had no ability to block one named merchant, but it could place a general gambling block on his account for transactions to known gambling sites. Louis did not take up the bank’s offer because he wanted to keep making some gambling transactions. During the next two months, he made payments totalling $80,000 to the casino. He then complained that the bank should reimburse him because it had failed to follow his instructions to block these transactions. He said depression and alcoholism had led to his gambling addiction.

Published:

May 2026

Our investigation

We examined the records of the calls in September 2025. They showed Louis contacted the bank twice about blocking future payments to the casino. On both occasions, the bank said it could not block future transactions to a single merchant and explained the general gambling block it could offer. The records also showed Louis asked about that option and told the bank not to apply it. He said he wanted to continue making some gambling transactions.

We considered whether the bank had any obligation to stop future payments to that one particular merchant (the online casino).

The bank was unable to stop future payments to one particular merchant – the online casino and had not promised such a service. A bank must act on a customer’s valid payment instructions and does not as a rule have to supervise how customers use their account or prevent unwise spending decisions. The bank clearly explained that it was unable to block future transactions to one specific merchant, and also clearly explained the support it was able to offer Louis, including a general gambling block and another option of using only an EFTPOS card. Louis did not want either option. After that, he gave valid payment instructions for the later transactions to the online casino.

We found the bank responded clearly to his enquiries on each occasion and breached no duty or obligation to him.