A ruling against Revolut has highlighted the question of whether banks need to go further than gambling blocks to properly protect vulnerable customers.
The UK’s Financial Ombudsman Service has ruled Revolut failed to adequately support a customer with a gambling addiction who requested restrictions on cryptocurrency use and account closure.
The case revolves around a Revolut customer (known as Mr H) who had repeatedly asked the bank to either permanently close their account or restrict access to its cryptocurrency feature as they were struggling with a gambling addiction.
While Revolut provided information about its gambling block tool and the option to hide cryptocurrency features, the ombudsman found these measures were insufficient because they could be reversed immediately.
The complaint, published on December 30, 2025, resulted in a £400 compensation award. The ombudsman also noted that from the outset the customer made it clear they required additional support, but Revolut repeatedly referred them to teams unable to provide meaningful assistance.
“Instead of listening to Mr H and trying to get a full understanding of what the issue was and looking at all the options available to him, Mr H – an extremely vulnerable individual – was given unhelpful advice around options Mr H was already aware of and passed around to teams that couldn’t help,” the ruling read.
The ombudsman also questioned why Revolut could not take the decision to permanently close the account itself, noting the company had the ability to do so but failed to act. Despite the customer first contacting Revolut on 27, May 2025, support was only implemented on July 24, 2025 after the case had been escalated to the ombudsman.
What’s expected from banks and PSPs?
The ruling highlights the responsibility of financial firms to identify and respond to vulnerable customers. Under the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) guidance for firms on the fair treatment of vulnerable customers, companies must adapt processes and product design to prevent foreseeable harm, including through tools such as gambling blockers.
“Problem gambling causes significant financial hardship. There are free money and gambling advice services available to support people who are struggling,” an FCA spokesperson tells Payment Expert.
“Under our Consumer Duty, firms must do right by their customers, especially those in vulnerable circumstances. We’ve guided firms on how they can support those with gambling problems, including restricting certain types of payments.”
In recent years, several UK banks, including HSBC, Monzo, Nationwide and Starling Bank, have taken steps to improve support for customers at risk of gambling harm, often through initiatives such as the Gambling Harms Action Lab.
Revolut has also introduced measures aimed at protecting vulnerable customers, including the aforementioned gambling block feature which allows users to restrict payments for gambling sites and activities.
A Revolut spokesperson tells Payment Expert protecting customers is a “highest priority,” noting the UK gambling block automatically prevents card payments identified as gambling.
The spokesperson adds the company strongly encourages customers to activate the feature and also offers the option to hide cryptocurrency tools for those who do not need them.
The use of these tools appears to be rising across the industry in recent years, with Monzo reporting its gambling block function saw an 8% year-on-year increase in usage in 2024 since new features were added in 2023. That year, £9m in transactions were blocked, while the average monthly volume of gambling payments rose from £657,000 in 2023 to £800,000.
Should banks do more?
However, as with this recent case, these tools do not work for everyone. Because the customer was using cryptocurrency to gamble, the gambling block would not actually prevent the payments from being completed.
Additionally, as the ombudsman pointed out in its ruling, customer decisions to activate blocks can be reversed just as easily as they are applied.
There has been growing discussion about how banks can play a greater role in supporting customers dealing with gambling addiction.
Research from the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute highlights the importance of early intervention. In an October 2025 blog, Senior Research Officer Leia Clifton wrote that unusual spending, persistent debt, missed bills and regular overdrafts can signal gambling harm.
“As the provider of our everyday financial services, banks can spot warning signs that customers may be struggling and require timely support,” she said.
Clifton added banks can play a role through proactive messaging: “Just as we look around and see gambling adverts everywhere, we should look around and see help and support at every turn – banks are a part of this picture.”
An international problem
The case also raises the issue of illegal and black-market gambling, which regulators in other countries are grappling with too.
In 2025, Poland raised concerns with the European Union about loopholes allowing payments to be processed for unlicensed gambling operators, warning the practices threaten national economies.
This led to the creation of a task force bringing together regulators, banks and the state gambling monopoly to block payment flows into the illegal market.
The UK Gambling Commission confirmed to Payment Expert that no UK-licensed operators offer gambling with cryptocurrency, meaning any site which does is operating illegally and often outside the protections provided by regulated operators.
While cooperation between government, payments firms, regulators and gambling bodies is critical, the fact the customer turned to their bank for help highlights the role payments providers play in tackling gambling harm.
Ombudsman response
“When gambling becomes an uncontrollable habit or addiction it can cause huge harm not just to an individual, but also to those around them, negatively impacting mental and physical health, relationships and finances,” says a spokesperson for the Financial Ombudsman Service.
“People should contact our service if they feel a financial provider could have done more to protect them from the harmful effects of gambling. We look at each case on its own individual merits. Our service is free, easy to use and impartial – if we find someone has been treated unfairly, we expect firms to act promptly and put things right for the consumer.”
