The financial industry faces mounting scrutiny as Citigroup, the third-largest bank in the US, confronts a legal challenge over its handling of online fraud cases.
A federal judge in Manhattan ruled on Tuesday that Citigroup’s attempt to dismiss a lawsuit filed by New York Attorney General Letitia James has been rejected.
The case underscores rising concerns about consumer protections in an era of increasing cybercrime.
The lawsuit
The lawsuit centres on claims that Citigroup failed to protect its customers from online scammers and denied victims adequate reimbursement.
The New York Attorney General’s office argues that Citibank’s actions violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), a federal law enacted in 1978 to protect consumers from fraud involving electronic transactions.
The law mandates that financial institutions bear the burden of ensuring secure transactions in cases where technological vulnerabilities may disadvantage customers.
US District Judge Paul Oetken emphasised in his decision that dismissing these claims would contradict the purpose of the EFTA, which was designed to protect consumers from the sophisticated scams that have proliferated in the digital era.
While Citigroup contended that the EFTA excludes wire transfers from its scope, the judge ruled otherwise, citing the need for banks to shoulder risks when fraud occurs through electronic systems.
Allegations against Citigroup
Attorney General James’s lawsuit sheds light on alleged systemic shortcomings in Citigroup’s fraud prevention mechanisms.
The case cites examples where scammers exploited vulnerabilities in the bank’s systems, such as unrecognised devices, sudden changes in account credentials, and phishing schemes.
One victim reportedly lost $40,000 after clicking a fraudulent text message link that appeared to be from Citibank.
James also accused the bank of coercing victims into signing affidavits that limited their ability to seek reimbursement.
These affidavits allegedly served as a pretext for Citibank to summarily reject fraud claims.
The lawsuit seeks to hold the bank accountable for failing to meet its legal obligation to safeguard consumer funds.
Implications for financial institutions and cybercrime accountability
The ruling to allow parts of the lawsuit to proceed raises questions about the broader responsibilities of banks in addressing cybercrime.
As fraudsters develop increasingly sophisticated methods, financial institutions are under pressure to adapt their security protocols.
Judge Oetken’s decision signals that courts may take a more critical view of how banks respond to consumer fraud.
While Citigroup has expressed disappointment in the ruling and maintains that its practices align with industry standards, the decision sets a precedent for heightened regulatory scrutiny.
Banks may face intensified legal and reputational risks if their systems are deemed inadequate to protect customers from evolving cyber threats.
The case also underscores the growing expectations for financial institutions to act as frontline defenders against online fraud.
As digital banking becomes ubiquitous, the balance between consumer protection and operational efficiency will likely remain a contentious issue for the industry.
The post Citigroup must explain fraud scam management, says New York judge appeared first on Invezz
