What happens when all your VISA charges are doubled for two days?

[oyvinds]

It would appear that the traditional banks have not yet solved the Double-Spend problem (as in double-spend your money even if that means you get a negative balance).

Perhaps they should switch to blockchain technology?

https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article19660429.ab
http://www.svd.se/naringsliv/visa-kunder-fick-betala-dubbelt_3989501.svd

One of the biggest Swedish banks, Nordea, decided that spending customers money (charging them) twice each time they purchase something with VISA was a great idea. It appears that they did this for a full two days.

This only affected 2 million VISA card holders or 1/4th of the Swedish population. The one-fourth of Sweden who now find themselves with negative bank account balances are not amused. Some have pointed out that not having the money needed to buy food and pay bills available to you is not that fun.

Nordea has promised to "sort this out". Nordea will surely deliver on that promise. We just have to wait.

[1715025619]

1715025619

[1715025619]

1715025619

[redHeadBlunder]

I am not 100% sure about sweedish law, however I would assume that customers are not liable for unauthorized transactions on their account. If a transaction was charged twice then they would not be liable for the 2nd charge (if they only authorized the first). Also this is almost certainly a UI issue as the bank would likely have not actually sent the money to the merchant accounts, and even if they did the funds are generally not available right away so it could easily be reversed.

I know that the above is the case in the US.

This is also not a "double spend" in the same way that bitcoin prevents "double spends"

[CUNÉGONDE]

This is the first time I heard about "double spends" out of Bitcoin.

[cinder]

Has double spend happen before? Or is it still theory?

[GenieBTC]

Has double spend happen before? Or is it still theory?

This is the first time I heard that.. Maybe its a theory waiting to be proven.

[oyvinds]

I am not 100% sure about sweedish law, however I would assume that customers are not liable for unauthorized transactions on their account. If a transaction was charged twice then they would not be liable for the 2nd charge (if they only authorized the first).

Nordea has promised that customers will get the second charge returned. If the money actually exited their system or if it was just a glitch in their own system is unclear. I am not sure what the law says but I doubt it would come to that as not promising to fix people's balances by reversing the 2nd charge for 2 MILLION people would probably be a bad idea...

What is the biggest problem with this though is that if you went and bought a sofa or something big then you now have a negative bank account balance which may be a problem if you need to buy something such as food for your family.

This is also not a "double spend" in the same way that bitcoin prevents "double spends"

:-) I know. I just wanted to use the phrase since it seemed somewhat appropriate.

[BrewCrewFan]

Yeah your power gets cut or you go hungry while your waiting for "them" to sort it out, which can take for as long as they damn please.... smart power.

I am starting to really get the feeling people are soon to be hungry for something better for options for ways to spend money. All the security breaches here in the US lately on banks and stores with info stolen is re enforcing this day by day. Its no easy task which also consumes massive amount of time out the individuals part to get things fixed when stuff like this happens.... but what do the banks and CC companies care... what other options do you have?

[lihuajkl]

It is by mistakes. I think it is possible if the bank don't care to lose business to its counter partys, such as credit card company, PayPal, cryptocurrency etc.

[Eisenhower34]

I am not 100% sure about sweedish law, however I would assume that customers are not liable for unauthorized transactions on their account. If a transaction was charged twice then they would not be liable for the 2nd charge (if they only authorized the first).

Nordea has promised that customers will get the second charge returned. If the money actually exited their system or if it was just a glitch in their own system is unclear. I am not sure what the law says but I doubt it would come to that as not promising to fix people's balances by reversing the 2nd charge for 2 MILLION people would probably be a bad idea...

What is the biggest problem with this though is that if you went and bought a sofa or something big then you now have a negative bank account balance which may be a problem if you need to buy something such as food for your family.

This is also not a "double spend" in the same way that bitcoin prevents "double spends"

:-) I know. I just wanted to use the phrase since it seemed somewhat appropriate.

They would have to refund the 2nd transaction otherwise they are stealing from their customers. If they do not refund the customers then they would essentially be a failed bank. I believe that banks there are insured by the government so deposit-holders will not suffer any actual losses

[pitham1]

This would be a PR disaster for the bank.
Market share will be dropping, I presume.

[Swordsoffreedom]

This is a peculiar scenario
So they doubled charged everyone hoping no one would be the wiser
Sounds like a bank

Of course they do it knowing that some people don't notice and they keep the change
The ones that do notice only get their money back no additional bonus for catching their mistakes or compensation in any way.

Meaning its a profit every time as long as they aren't stupid and do it to too many people at one time.
The ones that do notice would grumble but usually keep with their bank unless it was large scale like this case though.

[abrahamlitcoin]

This would be a PR disaster for the bank.
Market share will be dropping, I presume.

That will create a significant rumble in banking history

[pitham1]

This is a peculiar scenario
So they doubled charged everyone hoping no one would be the wiser
Sounds like a bank

Of course they do it knowing that some people don't notice and they keep the change
The ones that do notice only get their money back no additional bonus for catching their mistakes or compensation in any way.

Meaning its a profit every time as long as they aren't stupid and do it to too many people at one time.
The ones that do notice would grumble but usually keep with their bank unless it was large scale like this case though.

The bad PR would easily outweigh any small transactions that go unnoticed. 

[jjacob]

This would be a PR disaster for the bank.
Market share will be dropping, I presume.

That will create a significant rumble in banking history

Hopefully the regulator steps in with a strong message to the bank.

[Zeta0S]

https://blockchain.info/nl/double-spends