After seven long years and a court case, our client finally received compensation. Details of the damaging error
November 15, 2025 – 10:56 a.m.
The judgment of the Mar del Plata Civil and Commercial Appeals Court rectifies a dispute that had been going on for several years between a customer and a bank due to gross misconduct. The court concluded that the financial institution and card issuer acted in bad faith.
The judicial decision was based on the following facts: Although they reported that their client had no debt; A few months later, they reported him to the Central Bank of the Argentine Republic (BCRA) as an irrecoverable defaulter. This discrepancy resulted in millions of dollars in damages for economic and personal damages.
The case began in August 2018, when the customer received a card statement with a “0” balance. that A document proving that there are no outstanding debts. However, in October of the same year, the entity reported him to the central bank as a Category 5 defaulter, the most serious category in the credit information system.
The results were immediate. This negative rating was replicated in the Veraz database, affecting the customer’s financial reputation, causing credit application rejections, and placing the customer in a situation of unwarranted asset insecurity. The chamber of commerce said the bank had acted “completely against good faith” by first issuing a debt-free summary and then reporting the arrears some time later without prior documentary support.
The bank didn’t care about its customers
To the court, the company’s actions did not demonstrate an intention to resolve the dispute. On the contrary, it showed indifference and a complete lack of consistency between the information provided to customers and the information communicated to public authorities.
one of the central defenses of Banco Macro sought to exempt its customers from consumer protection laws. He argued that he was a trader and therefore it was not appropriate to apply the protective provisions.
The House rejected that position. After checking the overview of the cards, it was found that the consumption was related to everyday and family activities, such as purchases in supermarkets, sports equipment and household appliances, which had nothing to do with the actor’s commercial activities. Therefore, the court confirmed that the customer is the “ultimate recipient of the service,” thereby providing protection under the law.
he The judgment emphasized that banks and card issuers must respect information obligations in all cases, regardless of the user’s employment or commercial status, as long as consumption is not part of the production chain.
millionaire compensation
The Chamber of Commerce thought that was proven. Miscommunication resulted in consequences other than household goods.from woes to specific difficulties in operating the financial system. For this reason, we have decided to increase the amount originally set.
The Chubut Court, which canceled the judgment, considered it impossible to discern without the necessary consideration which parts of the judgment were written by the judge and which parts by artificial intelligence.
The court held as follows:
- Emotional damages: $1,400,000. Misreporting to the central bank caused direct damage to the client’s personal life.
- Punitive damages: $2,500,000. The bank and credit card company’s actions were a “clear violation of consumer rights,” compounded by the economic importance of the companies involved. The purpose is to achieve a deterrent effect to avoid similar acts in the future.
- The judgment emphasizes that the information that banks send to the central bank must be accurate, consistent and verifiable, as it directly affects the financial reputation and debt of any user.
About The Author
