Belgium

106 readers

2 users here now

Join us in exploring everything about the Belgium from hot off the press news to the rich history. Whether you're a local or are just interested in the country, this is the place you can use to connect with fellow enthusiasts.

Similar Community:

Sluit je aan bij deze community voor alles over België, van vers nieuws tot de rijke geschiedenis. Of je nu in België woont of gewoon interesse hebt in het land, dit is de plaats om in contact te komen met andere enthousiaste mensen.

Vergelijkbare communities:

Rejoignez-nous pour découvrir tout ce qui concerne la Belgique, des nouvelles les plus récentes à la riche histoire du pays. Que vous soyez un habitant de la région ou que vous vous intéressiez simplement au pays, c'est l'endroit où vous pouvez vous connecter avec d'autres passionnés.

Communautés similaires:

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

tfm

Kualdir

Illegal for banks to force people online -- but massive loophole renders the law useless (belgae.social)

submitted 1 week ago by autonomousPunk@belgae.social to c/Belgium

1 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Someone told me banks are considered an “essential service”, and that essential services must give they serve two ways of operating. They cannot force you to use their app or website. They must either give you a way to get service over the phone, over the counter, or by mail.

The guy was talking a bit vaguely. Does a phone app and web app count as two different methods? Where is this law written?

I mentioned that some banks are breaking this law. He said: actually, you can change banks. I’m like, wtf, what if I don’t? That makes the law a bit useless, no? He said so long as there exists ONE bank that offers two access methods, other banks can do what they want.

Is the law really written that way? It means that one bank affects the legal compliance of another. Who wants to be the last bank to offer two access methods, considering they would then be trapped? So it seems to create a race condition for banks to simplify down to one means of access, which is perhaps the opposite effect of the lawmakers’ intent.

top 1 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] myrmidex@belgae.social 4 points 1 week ago

All I can find on this is the Universal Banking Service charter. It makes no mention of such a one-bank-left-standing requirement.

It would indeed be very silly if such a law existed. The fact that we can imagine our government(s) drafting it says enough