Debit card never received, €220,000 withdrawn: who is liable?

The case

The case decided by the Higher Regional Court (OLG) of Frankfurt am Main in its judgment of 29.4.2026 – 17 U 62/24 begins in an everyday way: in June 2019, a customer opens a current account with a savings bank (Sparkasse). The debit card and PIN are to be sent to him by post. In the same month, he transfers 300,000 euros to the new account and then travels abroad for two months.

When he returns, he discovers that he never received the card. In the meantime, unauthorised third parties had made 210 withdrawals with a total value of just under 220,000 euros. The savings bank refunded a good 150,000 euros and refused to pay the remaining approximately 66,000 euros. The Regional Court (Landgericht) dismissed the action for this amount: after the announced card had failed to arrive for a long time, the customer should have enquired with the bank.

The decision of the OLG

The OLG took a different view and upheld the action. The core of the reasoning: the customer's liability for unauthorised payments is conclusively governed by § 675v BGB (German Civil Code). According to this provision, liability of the customer presupposes that he received the payment instrument at all — and it is precisely this that the bank must set out and prove. If it fails to do so, liability of the customer is out of the question.

The second consideration is particularly important: if the bank announces that a card will be sent, the customer is not liable even if he does not enquire when it fails to arrive for a longer period. Other bases of liability, such as a general allegation of carelessness, cannot be considered alongside this, because § 675v BGB governs customer liability conclusively. This corresponds to the assessment in § 675m(2) BGB, according to which the risk of sending a payment instrument and the associated security features lies with the payment service provider.

Open points

Two points thus expressly remain open. The court did not examine whether the customer could be liable under § 676b BGB for late notification of the unauthorised payments. And it granted leave to appeal on points of law (Revision), because the question of whether the bank can raise contributory negligence on the part of the customer against the refund claim under § 675u BGB is of fundamental importance. According to the available information, however, the savings bank did not lodge an appeal on points of law, so that this question will not be clarified by the highest court for the time being.

What this means for those affected

For those affected, this means: if, in a case of card misuse, a bank argues that you should have taken care of the card that failed to arrive, you should not simply accept this. First, the bank must prove that you actually received the card. Nevertheless, it remains important to report unauthorised debits immediately after becoming aware of them and to document everything — not least because of the notification deadlines. Whether a refund claim exists, and in what amount, depends on the individual case.