The Supreme Court Holds Banks Liable in Phishing Cases
On April 9, 2025, the Spanish Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that strengthens user protection against digital banking fraud, such as phishing. The Court stated that financial institutions cannot merely rely on technical authentication protocols—they must act with real diligence to prevent and manage unauthorized transactions.
A key takeaway from the judgment is that two-factor authentication systems (like SMS verification codes) do not exempt banks from liability. If fraud occurs and the client has acted diligently, the bank must bear the economic loss unless it can prove fraud or gross negligence on the part of the user.
This interpretation is based on Royal Decree-Law 19/2018 of November 23, on Payment Services. The ruling is a major step forward for consumers, who now have stronger legal grounds to demand refunds of money stolen through identity theft.
Additionally, the decision sets a new standard for the financial sector, which must not only improve its security systems but also enhance its fraud response and customer service protocols.
Key Measures of Royal Decree-Law 4/2025 to Address U.S. Tariff Impact
Royal Decree-Law 4/2025, dated April 8, introduces a series of urgent measures to offset the impact of the United States’ tariff policy on the Spanish economy. The law aims to protect the business fabric, preserve jobs, promote internationalization, and diversify markets.
The decree introduces a Response and Trade Relaunch Plan with a total budget of €14.1 billion, making it one of the most ambitious economic responses in recent years.
New Supreme Court Criterion on Urban Lease Buyback Rights
The Spanish Supreme Court ruling of April 21, 2025 clarifies the limits on the exercise of the statutory buyback right (retracto) by urban tenants, providing a restrictive interpretation of Article 25.7 of the Urban Lease Law (LAU).
The Court ruled that the right of first refusal and buyback does not always apply—particularly when the sale concerns several units in a building owned by the landlord, but not the entire property.
In the specific case, the Municipal Housing Company sold all the units it owned in a building, but not the entire building. The Supreme Court concluded that the statutory buyback right does not apply here, as legal requirements for a total joint sale were not met. This offers greater legal certainty to both property owners and buyers in complex real estate transactions.
Key questions
-
Can a bank avoid liability for phishing fraud if it uses two-factor authentication systems?
-
What measures has the Spanish Government approved to protect businesses from U.S. tariffs?
-
When does a tenant lose their buyback right in joint property sales?
-
What requirements must a Confidential Binding Offer (CBO) meet to be valid as an out-of-court dispute resolution attempt?
Confidential Binding Offer (CBO) as an Effective Dispute Resolution Tool
Organic Law 1/2025, in force since January, introduces the Confidential Binding Offer (CBO) as a quick and effective method for resolving disputes before going to court.
A CBO is a formal, confidential proposal that identifies the parties and the dispute, offers a concrete solution, and sets a minimum one-month acceptance period. If the amount involved exceeds €2,000, the involvement of a lawyer is mandatory.
If the CBO is not accepted or not answered, a judicial procedure may begin, demonstrating that a prior settlement attempt was made. This mechanism promotes a culture of settlement, eases the court system’s burden, and enhances legal certainty.
