They are not allowed to decide they don’t need to make good on their debt, but that isn’t the topic of discussion here. They are allowed and in fact required to have a variety of controls on the manner and mechanisms with which they discharge said debt, and pretty much everyone is in favor of this, broadly construed. You just don’t like this particular control.
This is not a required control, at least in many jurisdictions.
It’s also a particularly onerous control, making it effectively impossible to use hardware not under the control of American cartels. If the USA were to behave poorly on the international stage (inconceivable, I’m sure), this may cause problems for people outside of the USA. This seems rather unwise from a digital sovereignty perspective.
Edit, also:
They are not allowed to decide they don’t need to make good on their debt
If they’re allowed to impose arbitrary barriers, they can dodge making good on their debt indefinitely, which is approximately equivalent.
Whether it’s a “required” control depends on how you interpret broad requirements to have concrete measures to minimize consumer risk. E.g. the EU requires payment service providers to “adopt security measures […] to mitigate the risk which would result from that multi-purpose device [i.e. phone] being compromised”. Regulators don’t generally get more specific than that, but tend to get annoyed if there’s widely used measures you could take but are choosing not to.
But this is beside the point, because again, mobile banking is strictly a convenience measure that banks are not required to provide at all. Yes, if they cut off all ways to do withdrawals or to move money to another bank this would allow them to avoid their obligations to you, but it doesn’t follow that they have to offer every method to every customer.
They are not allowed to decide they don’t need to make good on their debt, but that isn’t the topic of discussion here. They are allowed and in fact required to have a variety of controls on the manner and mechanisms with which they discharge said debt, and pretty much everyone is in favor of this, broadly construed. You just don’t like this particular control.
score 1 · canonical
This is not a required control, at least in many jurisdictions.
It’s also a particularly onerous control, making it effectively impossible to use hardware not under the control of American cartels. If the USA were to behave poorly on the international stage (inconceivable, I’m sure), this may cause problems for people outside of the USA. This seems rather unwise from a digital sovereignty perspective.
Edit, also:
If they’re allowed to impose arbitrary barriers, they can dodge making good on their debt indefinitely, which is approximately equivalent.
score 1 · canonical
Whether it’s a “required” control depends on how you interpret broad requirements to have concrete measures to minimize consumer risk. E.g. the EU requires payment service providers to “adopt security measures […] to mitigate the risk which would result from that multi-purpose device [i.e. phone] being compromised”. Regulators don’t generally get more specific than that, but tend to get annoyed if there’s widely used measures you could take but are choosing not to.
But this is beside the point, because again, mobile banking is strictly a convenience measure that banks are not required to provide at all. Yes, if they cut off all ways to do withdrawals or to move money to another bank this would allow them to avoid their obligations to you, but it doesn’t follow that they have to offer every method to every customer.
score 1 · canonical