This is a U.K. news story, published by CNBC, that relates primarily to Revolut news.
For more U.K. news, you can click here:
more U.K. newsFor more tech giants news, you can click here:
more tech giants newsFor more news from CNBC, you can click here:
more news from CNBCOtherweb, Inc is a public benefit corporation, dedicated to improving the quality of news people consume. We are non-partisan, junk-free, and ad-free. We use artificial intelligence (AI) to remove junk from your news feed, and allow you to select the best tech news, business news, entertainment news, and much more. If you like tech giants news, you might also like this article about
APP fraud. We are dedicated to bringing you the highest-quality news, junk-free and ad-free, about your favorite topics. Please come every day to read the latest fraud threat news, fraud activity news, tech giants news, and other high-quality news about any topic that interests you. We are working hard to create the best news aggregator on the web, and to put you in control of your news feed - whether you choose to read the latest news through our website, our news app, or our daily newsletter - all free!
online fraudCNBC
•
81% Informative
Starting from Oct. 7 , banks will be required to start compensating victims of online fraud a maximum 85,000 in the U.K. Tensions are escalating over who should be liable for compensating people if they fall victim to fraud schemes online.
On Thursday , London -based digital bank Revolut accused Meta of falling "woefully short of what's required to tackle fraud globally".
Meta says banks in the U.K. are "too focused on their efforts to transfer liability for fraud to other industries" The social media giant called on the government to "encourage more cross-industry collaboration like this" The tech giant stressed that banks, including Revolut , should look to join forces with Meta on its FIRE framework.
VR Score
86
Informative language
87
Neutral language
61
Article tone
semi-formal
Language
English
Language complexity
61
Offensive language
possibly offensive
Hate speech
not hateful
Attention-grabbing headline
not detected
Known propaganda techniques
not detected
Time-value
short-lived
External references
1
Source diversity
1
Affiliate links
no affiliate links