Argentine Case Law
On December 23, 2025, the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes (the “Superior Court”), in the case “Alarcón Fidela v. Banco de Corrientes S.A. s/ Consumer Protection”, issued a ruling (the “Judgment”) confirming the liability of Banco de Corrientes (the “Bank”) in connection with a loan taken out as a result of a digital fraud.
Facts
A consumer was the victim of a phishing scam (cybercrime) through which third parties obtained her banking information and took out a pre-approved loan from the Bank, transferring the funds to external accounts.
The plaintiff sued the Bank seeking restitution of the amounts withheld in connection with that loan—declared null—and compensation for moral damages. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals upheld the claim, framing the case under the Bank’s strict liability as a provider of financial services. They rejected the argument that the victim had “voluntarily” provided her data, noting that such conduct is precisely the defining feature of phishing schemes.
The Bank filed an extraordinary appeal for misapplication of law before the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes, alleging an unreasonable assessment of the evidence.
The Superior Court’s Ruling
The Superior Court dismissed the Bank’s substantive arguments and confirmed its liability.
It held that the expert IT report invoked by the appellant was not decisive, since phishing does not breach internal system mechanisms but rather exploits them by obtaining customer data through deception. The Court emphasized that the Bank, as custodian of third-party funds and provider of a risky service such as home banking, bears an objective and heightened duty of security, which includes implementing cybersecurity measures proportionate to the ease of access to credit offered.
The plaintiff’s condition as a “hyper-vulnerable” consumer—due to her age and the technological context—further reinforced this conclusion. In this framework, the customer’s negligence or lack of experience does not exempt the Bank from its strict liability.
Costs
The only aspect in which the appeal succeeded concerned the allocation of costs. The Court of Appeals had assigned 20% of the costs to the plaintiff, as she was unsuccessful in her claim for punitive damages, but ordered that each party bear its own costs pursuant to the benefit of free legal aid under Section 53 of the Consumer Protection Law (Law No. 24,240).
The Superior Court reversed this criterion, holding that the provision does not automatically exempt consumers from paying costs when they are unsuccessful. Instead, it allows the defendant company to prove the plaintiff’s solvency through a separate proceeding in order to terminate that benefit. Therefore, the costs corresponding to the portion in which the Bank prevailed must be imposed on the unsuccessful consumer in accordance with the law, without prejudice to the possibility of initiating a solvency incident.
Costs at the extraordinary appeal stage were allocated 20% to the appellant and 80% to the respondent.
