BT-REQ-3972 PSD3 Impacts v6(without crop marks) RL - Flipbook - Page 22
22
HL | PSD3 Impacts
12. Impersonation
fraud
(PSR Art 59)
What is changing?
The proposed PSR is introducing a new obligation
on PSPs to refund a consumer within 10 business
days where the consumer is tricked into authorising
a payment by a fraudster impersonating the PSP.
The consumer will not be entitled to a refund if they
have been party to the fraud, or grossly negligent.
The text also requires the claimant to make a
police report.
The burden of proof is on the PSP of the consumer
to prove that the consumer acted fraudulently or
with gross negligence.
The EP Text seeks to broaden this requirement
significantly by:
extending PSP liability to cover a wider range of
impersonations (i.e. impersonation of the PSP or
‘any other relevant entity of public or private
nature’); and
requiring the PSP’s justification for refusing a
refund to be “substantiated” and provided to
the NCA.
The EP Text also seeks to expand the scope of
regulation to electronic communications services
providers, who will be liable to the PSP if they fail to
remove the fraudulent or illegal content once notified
of its existence where the consumer has, without any
delay, reported the fraud to the police and notified
its PSP.
The Council Text has remained closer to the
Commission’s original wording.
Overview
The proposed PSR seeks to make PSPs liable
for authorised payments made by consumers
that have been tricked into making those
payments by someone impersonating the PSP.
The EP Text proposes to extend this to
payments that result from impersonation of
any other relevant entity of a public or private
nature. However, this has not been accepted in
the Council’s Text.
