Peru’s consumer protection agency, Indecopi, has sanctioned Interbank with a fine exceeding 19,000 soles after the financial institution issued a credit card to a client without her express authorization. The ruling underscores a tightening regulatory grip on the Peruvian banking sector, where aggressive product placement has occasionally collided with consumer rights.
The case centered on a female client who reported receiving a credit card she had neither requested nor signed for. Upon investigation, Indecopi determined that the bank failed to provide evidence of the client’s consent, leading the agency to conclude that the bank had violated the fundamental right of consumers to be properly informed and to provide explicit agreement before the activation of financial products.
For the banking industry in Lima and beyond, the sanction serves as a pointed reminder that “implied consent” or administrative shortcuts do not hold weight under current consumer protection laws. The fine, while modest relative to the bank’s overall capital, carries significant symbolic weight, signaling that Indecopi is prioritizing the prevention of “abusive practices” in the acquisition of new credit users.
The Mechanics of the Violation
The core of the dispute rested on the concept of “express permission.” In the financial services sector, the distinction between a pre-approved offer and an activated product is critical. While banks frequently send marketing materials or “pre-approved” notices to existing customers, the legal threshold for activating a line of credit—which carries potential debt and interest obligations—is significantly higher.
In this specific instance, Interbank was unable to produce a signed contract or a verified digital confirmation that the client had opted into the credit card service. Indecopi’s ruling emphasizes that the mere delivery of a physical card does not constitute an agreement to the terms and conditions associated with that card.
The agency’s decision follows a pattern of increasing scrutiny toward how banks handle “cross-selling”—the practice of selling additional products to existing customers. When this process becomes automated or occurs without a clear “opt-in,” it moves from a business strategy to a regulatory violation.
Breaking Down the Sanction
The financial penalty is calculated based on the severity of the infringement and the nature of the consumer’s right that was breached. Below is a summary of the administrative action taken by the regulator.
| Detail | Description |
|---|---|
| Regulating Body | Indecopi (Peru) |
| Sanctioned Entity | Interbank |
| Penalty Amount | Over S/19,000 (Peruvian Soles) |
| Primary Infringement | Issuance of credit card without express authorization |
| Core Violation | Lack of informed consent/Abusive practice |
Broader Implications for Peruvian Banking
This ruling is not an isolated event but part of a broader effort by Indecopi to ensure that financial institutions operate with transparency. In recent years, the agency has warned that no bank, regardless of its size or market share, is permitted to activate products—be they insurance policies, credit lines, or maintenance fees—without a clear, documented trail of permission.
The impact of such rulings extends beyond the immediate fine. For consumers, it reinforces the utility of filing formal complaints through the Libro de Reclamaciones (Complaints Book), a mandatory tool in Peruvian commerce that allows the state to track systemic failures in customer service.
For the banks, the risk is twofold: financial penalties and reputational damage. In a market where digital transformation is rapidly changing how customers interact with their money, the “human” element of consent remains the primary legal safeguard. The transition to digital signatures and app-based approvals has created new loopholes, but Indecopi has made it clear that the burden of proof remains squarely on the institution, not the consumer.
The Consumer’s Right to Refuse
The case highlights several key protections available to consumers in Peru. According to the guidelines reinforced by this ruling, consumers are protected against:
- Unsolicited Products: The delivery of a product not requested by the user cannot be interpreted as acceptance of a contract.
- Lack of Transparency: Banks must clearly state the costs, interest rates, and obligations of any product before it is activated.
- Administrative Coercion: The activation of one service (such as a savings account) cannot automatically trigger the activation of another (such as a credit card) without separate consent.
Legal experts suggest that this case may encourage more consumers to audit their accounts for “ghost” products—services they are paying for or are liable for, but never explicitly requested. This proactive auditing is becoming essential as banks integrate more complex, bundled financial packages.
Disclaimer: This report is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or financial advice. Individuals seeking to resolve disputes with financial institutions should consult with a qualified legal professional or contact Indecopi directly.
As Interbank processes this sanction, the industry will be watching for any subsequent appeals or changes in the bank’s internal onboarding protocols. The next critical checkpoint will be the public disclosure of Indecopi’s quarterly consumer protection report, which typically aggregates these sanctions to identify if unauthorized product issuance is a systemic trend across the Peruvian banking sector.
We invite readers to share their experiences with banking transparency in the comments below or share this article to help others understand their consumer rights.
