Introduction
The Commission of the Regional Office of INDECOPI (Instituto Nacional de Defensa de la Competencia y la Protección de la Propiedad Intelectual – National Institute for the Defense of Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property) of Lambayeque, through Final Resolution No. 325-2024/INDECOPI-LAM, confirmed the complaint filed by Mrs. Nuby Thelma Uriarte Jiménez against Financiera OH! S.A., imposing a sanction of 3.49 UIT (Unidad Impositiva Tributaria – Applicable Tax Unit) and ordering corrective measures. The resolution addresses a violation of the Consumer Protection and Defense Code, specifically Article 19, which prohibits issuing financial products without prior request or authorization.
Background
The complainant, Nuby Thelma Uriarte Jiménez, stated that the financial entity OH! S.A. issued a credit card in her name without her request or authorization, in addition to allowing unrecognized transactions with this financial product. The entity also attributed to her a debt of S/145.59 for a billing cycle corresponding to a product that she did not request. Given this situation, the complainant requested corrective measures such as canceling the card and rectifying her credit history with alleged violations.
INDECOPI’s Ruling
After analyzing the arguments and evidence presented by both parties, INDECOPI concluded that Financiera OH! S.A. had incurred serious misconduct, highlighting that the financial entity did not present sufficient evidence to prove that the credit card issuance had been requested or authorized by the complainant. In addition, the security mechanisms implemented by the company failed to prevent unrecognized transactions, which represents a violation of consumer rights.
Consequently, the following sanctions and corrective measures were imposed:
- Economic fine: Financiera OH! S.A. must pay 3.49 UIT for the infractions committed.
- Cancellation of the card: The cancellation of the improperly issued product and the elimination of all associated operations and charges.
- Credit rectification: The entity must correct the complainant’s credit history in the credit bureaus.
- Procedural costs: The establishment of the payment of the costs and expenses of the administrative procedure.
- Inscription in the infringement registry: The finance company will be included in INDECOPI’s Registry of Infractions and Sanctions, affecting its reputation in the market.
Ruling Repercussions
The ruling emphasized that, despite the arguments presented by the finance company regarding the use of biometric validations, it was insufficient to demonstrate the complainant’s express authorization. Therefore, the ruling establishes that the entity failed to comply with the minimum verification standards required by current regulations.
Furthermore, INDECOPI’s ruling favors the complainant and highlights the need to improve regulation in the financial sector. Entities should prioritize implementing more rigorous processes to ensure all products and services with explicit authorization and under reliable security measures. This ruling reinforces the importance of consumers informing themselves and asserting their rights for any irregularities.
Conclusion
Final Resolution No. 325-2024/INDECOPI-LAM reinforces the protection of consumers’ rights in Peru, underlining the importance of transparency and express authorization in contracting financial products. In addition to sanctioning the improper issuance of a credit card and the lack of security measures, this decision sets a clear precedent for the financial sector, demanding higher regulatory compliance standards and responsibility towards users.
Emphasizing that consumers have efficient legal tools to defend themselves against abusive or negligent practices highlights INDECOPI’s work as a guarantor of a fair relationship between companies and consumers. It is a reminder to financial institutions that trust and confidence are fundamental to building sustainable relationships with their customers.
Source: Gob.pe