Revolut CEO, Nikolay Storonsky (L) and Meta CEO, Mark Zuckerberg.
Reuters
British financial technology firm Revolut on Thursday criticized Facebook parent company Meta over its approach to tackling fraud, saying the U.S. tech giant should directly compensate people who fall victim to scams via its social media platforms.
A day after Meta announced a partnership with U.K. banks NatWest and Metro Bank on a data-sharing framework designed to help prevent customers from falling prey to fraud schemes, Revolut said the pact “falls woefully short of what’s required to tackle fraud globally.”
In a statement, Woody Malouf, Revolut’s head of financial crime, said that Meta’s plans to tackle financial fraud on its platforms amount to “baby steps, when what the industry really needs is giant leaps forward.”
“These platforms share no responsibility in reimbursing victims, and so they have no incentive to do anything about it. A commitment to data sharing, albeit needed, simply isn’t good enough,” Malouf added.
CNBC has contacted Meta for comment.
New payment industry reforms will come into force in the U.K. on Oct. 7 that require banks and payment firms to issue victims of so-called authorized push payment (APP) fraud a maximum compensation of £85,000 ($111,000).
Britain’s Payments System Regulator had previously recommended a £415,000 maximum compensation amount for fraud victims, but backed down following backlash from banks and payment firms.
Revolut’s Malouf said that, while his company is on board with steps the U.K. government is taking to combat fraud, Meta and other social media platforms should do their part to financially compensate those who fall victim to fraud as a result of scams originating on their sites.
The fintech firm published a report Thursday alleging that 62% of user-reported fraud on its online banking platform originated from Meta, down from 64% last year.
Facebook was the most common source of all scams reported by Revolut users, accounting for 39% of fraud, while WhatsApp was the second-highest source of such events with an 18% share, the bank said in its “Consumer Security and Financial Crime Report.“
Check out the companies making headlines in midday trading: American Airlines — Shares slipped less than 1%, recovering from earlier losses, after the airline temporarily grounded all of its flights due to a technical issue. Broadcom — The semi stock added 2%, extending its December rally. Shares have surged more than 46% this month, propelling its 2024 gain above 112%. Big banks — Shares of some big bank stocks rose more than 1% amid news that a group of banks and business groups are suing the Federal Reserve over the annual stress tests, saying it “produces vacillating and unexplained requirements and restrictions on bank capital.” Citigroup , JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs shares gained more than 1% each. Arcadium Lithium — Shares rose more than 4% after the company announced its shareholders have approved the $6.7 billion sale to Rio Tinto . The deal is expected to close in mid-2025. International Seaways — The energy transportation provider surged 8% after an announcement that the company would be added to the S & P SmallCap 600 index, effective Dec. 30. The company will replace Consolidated Communications , which is soon to be acquired. Crypto stocks — Shares of stocks tied to the price of bitcoin rose as the cryptocurrency gave back recent losses amid a climb in tech names broadly. Crypto services provider Coinbase gained almost 3% and bitcoin proxy MicroStrategy gained more than 5%. Miners Riot Platforms and IREN gained 6% and 4%, respectively. U.S. Steel — The steel producer’s stock hovered near the flatline amid news that President Joe Biden will decide on the fate of its proposed acquisition by Japan’s Nippon Steel after a government panel failed to reach a decision . Apple — Apple shares gained 0.9% to notch a new all-time high. The stock has rallied nearly 34% year to date. — CNBC’s Sean Conlon, Lisa Han, Tanaya Macheel and Alex Harring contributed reporting.
A general view of the Federal Reserve Building in Washington, United States.
Samuel Corum | Anadolu Agency | Getty Images
The biggest banks are planning to sue the Federal Reserve over the annual bank stress tests, according to a person familiar with the matter. A lawsuit is expected this week and could come as soon as Tuesday morning, the person said.
The Fed’s stress test is an annual ritual that forces banks to maintain adequate cushions for bad loans and dictates the size of share repurchases and dividends.
After the market close on Monday, the Federal Reserve announced in a statement that it is looking to make changes to the bank stress tests and will be seeking public comment on what it calls “significant changes to improve the transparency of its bank stress tests and to reduce the volatility of resulting capital buffer requirements.”
The Fed said it made the determination to change the tests because of “the evolving legal landscape,” pointing to changes in administrative laws in recent years. It didn’t outline any specific changes to the framework of the annual stress tests.
While the big banks will likely view the changes as a win, it may be too little too late.
Also, the changes may not go far enough to satisfy the banks’ concerns about onerous capital requirements. “These proposed changes are not designed to materially affect overall capital requirements, according to the Fed.
The CEO of BPI (Bank Policy Institute), Greg Baer, which represents big banks like JPMorgan, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, welcomed the Fed announcement, saying in a statement “The Board’s announcement today is a first step towards transparency and accountability.”
However, Baer also hinted at further action: “We are reviewing it closely and considering additional options to ensure timely reforms that are both good law and good policy.”
Groups like the BPI and the American Bankers Association have raised concerns about the stress test process in the past, claiming that it is opaque, and has resulted in higher capital rules that hurt bank lending and economic growth.
In July, the groups accused the Fed of being in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, because it didn’t seek public comment on its stress scenarios and kept supervisory models secret.