25.04.2026 15:22
A citizen in Izmir, who was defrauded of a total of 273,537 TL when money and credit were withdrawn from his bank account without his knowledge while trying to close an advertisement that appeared on his phone, took the matter to court. The Consumer Court ruled that the bank was 79 percent at fault for failing to fulfill its obligations and ordered it to pay compensation with interest to the citizen.
On October 17, 2023, in Izmir, a person named S.P., while watching a movie on their phone, clicked the 'X' icon to close an advertisement at the top of the screen. After clicking this icon, the phone screen locked. The screen light began to flash. S.P. was unable to intervene with the phone.
ALL ACCOUNTS EMPTIED, LOAN TAKEN IN THEIR NAME When S.P. woke up in the morning, they noticed that a loan of 10,000 Turkish Lira had been taken out via mobile banking without their knowledge or consent, and their time deposit account had been broken, with a total of 263,537 Turkish Lira transferred to third parties. Following this, S.P., through their lawyer Şenay Geçkil, brought the matter to the judiciary.
TECHNICAL INTERFACE LACKS SECURITY In the lawsuit filed at the 6th Consumer Court of Izmir, the expert report emphasized that the mobile application did not provide consumers with an interface to set up a two-factor authentication (2FA) security protocol. The report underlined that there was a technical interface security deficiency and stated the opinion that the bank was one hundred percent technically deficient/at fault in the incident. After the expert report, the 6th Consumer Court of Izmir, which ruled partly on the case, emphasized that banks must take all measures regarding the security of their internet banking systems, correct system errors and deficiencies, and bring the system in line with the latest known technological developments.
Lawyer Şenay Geçkil COMPENSATION WITH INTEREST It was also underlined that banks must provide the necessary infrastructure against evolving fraud methods to determine whether the person performing banking transactions is the actual customer. The court concluded that in the incident in question, the bank did not fulfill its obligations, and the plaintiff also did not exercise sufficient care. The court ruled that the bank's fault rate was 70 percent, and S.P.'s fault rate was 30 percent. For this reason, the court ordered the bank, which was 70 percent at fault, to pay the plaintiff material compensation of 184,415 Turkish Lira, corresponding to this rate, along with the highest deposit interest.
"PROTECTING THE CUSTOMER IS A MUST" Evaluating the decision, S.P.'s lawyer Şenay Geçkil said, "Despite suspicious and high-value transactions, not activating additional verification and security mechanisms is a clear security vulnerability in digital banking. If there is no security, the responsibility lies with the bank. The court's finding the bank at fault serves as a precedent for citizens who have experienced similar victimizations. The bank's obligation to provide a secure transaction infrastructure and protect the customer in electronic banking transactions is not a choice but a necessity."