Indecopi confirmed an administrative sanction against Supermarket chain Plaza Vea for not verifying the identity of the owner of one Credit card Used in two unrecognized operations conducted in late 2023. The measure was adopted by the Chamber of Consumer Protection, which confirmed a fine of 11.6 UIT because the company had failed to comply with the fitness obligation provided for in consumer protection regulations.
The case arose from a complaint filed by a consumerwho reported unauthorized consumption with a total value of S/27,769.00 that was carried out in one of the chain’s establishments. After evaluating the procedure, the authority concluded that the company did not sufficiently apply the security measures necessary for this type of transaction to enable them to be carried out. fraudulent operations without prior verification of the cardholder’s identity.
The complaint was submitted in March 2024 by a consumer who indicated that two purchases were made at his expense on December 31, 2023. Credit card for S/ 3,980.00 and S/ 23,789.00 amounts that he allegedly did not authorize. According to the files, the operations were carried out by entering the card and the secret code, but without proving the identity of the owner.
After the case was accepted for processing, the commission of the Indecopi regional office of La Libertad brought charges See plaza a violation of Article 19 of the Consumer Protection and Defense Codesince it has not taken the necessary measures to avoid the consumption in question. In November 2024, the Commission declared the complaint well-founded and sanctioned the company with a fine of UIT 11.60, as well as ordering payment of procedural costs and ordering the infringement to be recorded in the relevant register.
See plaza He appealed the decision, claiming that he had acted with due care and that the operations were carried out using the secret key or PIN, a mechanism which, in his opinion, was sufficient for the consumption to be considered valid. Likewise, it claimed that industry regulations did not require additional identity verification if the customer had correctly entered their password, citing previous statements from other administrative authorities supporting this criterion.
The company also questioned the proportionality of the measure Sanction imposed and requested that both the fine and the costs be set aside on the grounds that it was not responsible for the fraudulent acts discovered in the specific case.
When deciding on the appeal, the Specialized consumer protection room fully confirmed the first instance decision. In its analysis, it stated that the Credit and Debit Card Regulation requires affiliated entities to simultaneously implement security measures, including verification of the validity of the card, the identity of the user and, if necessary, the signature of the customer. In this context, he emphasized that the use of the PIN does not replace the obligation to reliably identify the cardholder before authorizing a transaction.
The room points out that the payment receipts for the transactions in question only contained the note “VERIFIED PIN” without recording the name or ID number of the cardholder. This failure, according to the arbitrator, shows that the company has not complied with the identification procedure required by the current regulations, which allows consumption to take place despite the lack of authorization from the owner.
With regard to the gradation of the penalty, the resolution body considered that the magnitude of the impact was moderate, being an amount of more than 4 UIT and less than 8 UIT See plaza considered a great company. Since the infringement was immediate and no aggravating or mitigating circumstances were identified, the final fine was determined 11.6 ITUwithout exceeding the applicable legal limits.
After all, that’s it Indecopi demanded a spontaneous payment from the company the fine and the costs of the procedure, under penalty of taking coercive measures in the event of non-compliance. In addition, it confirmed the entry of the violation in the register of violations and sanctions and reiterated that commercial establishments must strictly comply with security measures to protect the economic interests of consumers.
About The Author
