The National Appeals Court in Commercial Matters reversed a previous decision and decided to impose a fine of $1,500,000 due to the negligent conduct of BBVA Argentina and Prisma Payment Media. In the issued ruling, prosecutor Gabriela Boquin described the behavior of the defendants as "an undignified treatment and a grossly negligent conduct." She emphasized that the customer experienced "severely negligent and irresponsible" actions from these companies, criticizing their attempt to disclaim responsibility, which she considered a common practice in this type of claims.
The court highlighted that BBVA and Prisma did not cooperate with the accounting expertise, did not present evidence that supported the operation in question, and did not offer a response in accordance with current legislation. Judge Heredia characterized the companies' attitude as "grossly negligent behavior" that prioritized their own interests over those of the consumer.
The resolution of the Chamber strengthens the protection of credit card users and sets an important precedent in terms of consumer defense and corporate responsibility. The ruling obliges both entities to pay $1,500,000 as punitive damages for violating the Credit Card Law and for subjecting the customer to a claims process that violated their right to dignified treatment.
Chamber E of the Commercial Court determined that BBVA Argentina and Prisma Payment Media must compensate a customer who had claimed for fraudulent consumption on their credit card and had not received an adequate response. The ruling was issued on February 25 and aligns with the opinion of the Attorney General Gabriela Boquin.
The specific case involved an unknown transaction of $543.83, made in Mexico on June 1, 2022, which the customer disputed requesting its annulment. Following the rejection of the claim by BBVA and Prisma, and the lack of a legally compliant response, the affected party initiated a lawsuit. Although in the first instance, the reimbursement of the money plus interest and compensation for moral damage was ordered, the punitive damage was dismissed.
