No online access to online only bank? I have an account at an online only bank. There are no physical branch locations for me to visit. 8 months ago I had an issue trying to log in and called their customer support to try to get it resolved. They told me it's a technical issue, gave me a case number and told me they'd contact me once it's resolved. I've since called a few times and each time they tell me that it's already been escalated and as a technical issue they don't have any timeline for how long it will take for my access to be restored. I can still check my balance etc. over the phone, but I can't use mobile deposit for example. Are there any legal requirements for allowing access to my account that I might be able to cite when trying to get this issue further escalated? (When I asked what I was supposed to do about not being able to mobile deposit, I was told I could send the check in by mail to get it processed, so I'm not sure if they could claim I still legally have access to my account, or if there even is such a concept as having legal access to an account.)
Online banks in the US are not legally special: they have to comply with the obligations of brick and mortar banks. I assume that this is actually a US bank, and not a Nigerian bank that you access from the US. However, there is no regulation that requires a bank to be able to handle mobile deposits. If the problem is just that you can't make online deposits, that is legally allowed. For example, my own bank did not have the facility for processing mobile deposits until a few years ago, and even now I have to use a smart phone to make such deposits (it is a traditional bank). The only way in which your situation would be legally problematic would be if your contract with the bank promises that you can make mobile deposits. You could reasonably argue that an 8 month delay in solving the problem was unreasonable. Presumably there is some benefit to maintaining this bank, one which you'd like to keep rather than closing the account and moving on. It might be something like &quot;if you close this account, we will claw back the interest that we paid&quot;. That is the point at which it might be worthwhile to talk to your lawyer about taking legal action.
It is rather unclear what the facts are, and the legal answer would depend crucially on those facts. My understanding is that you bought a domain from a provider, and they allowed you to use a web server for some period. It also appears that you don't have a clear understanding of the contract, which may have been made online and you might not have retained a copy of the agreement (which would allow you to look at the terms). The assumption that failing to pay substitutes for explicitly cancelling a service is incorrect. If under the contract you agree to pay a certain amount per year, then you have been racking up charges for some time, and you would need to actually cancel. Ultimately, they could take you to court to force you to pay what you owe, although usually there are less drastic intermediate steps. In court, they would produce their documents to show that you owe money, and your attorney would somehow counter, perhaps by alleging that you had a good-faith belief that the contract had been terminated. It is possible that they simply messed up and failed to send you an invoice earlier, which could explain the lack of invoice. At any rate, the fact that you haven't gotten an invoice does not legally entitle you to avoid paying for the service, whether or not you use it. On the premise that they haven't taken back the domain (seems like they didn't), you can legally use it. However, if you do use it, then that would trash any claim that you believed the contract had been terminated (to argue "I thought it had been canceled" entails "and thus I didn't use the service").
Yes, you did something wrong; you used both the university's trade mark and copyright without their permission. I don't know the law in India, however, if it is similar to Australia it is unlikely that the police will be interested in doing anything about it. While it is technically a crime, criminal prosecution is usually reserved for egregious breaches on a for profit basis. I suggest you apologise and agree to stop distributing your app.
An incomplete list: Getting the money. How did you plan to get paid? Credit card? Paypal? Integrating those into a website in compliance with their terms of service is not easy. (I wouldn't touch credit card numbers, in particular, even with a ten-foot pole. Too much liability risk for weak implementations. Too many highly skilled attackers to pounce on any mistake.) Distributing the App. Places like the Apple App Store have their own terms of service, especially regarding payment and in-app purchases. At a guess, Apple would reject your app, but if they allowed it, how does your withdrawal policy fit with the 30% cut they want from the initial transaction? Holding the money. So there are user accounts with a credit balance that can be withdrawn again. Would you be able to repay them if all users withdraw at the same time? Where do you keep the money? Currency risks. Say international customers pay in currency A, which the payment provider transforms into currency B. Then they want their money back, but exchange rates have changed. What do they get? Knowing your customer. There would be money laundering concerns. Do you have the infrastructure to identify your customers? Can customers change the (re)payment method from one account to another? Can you handle withdrawals if a user no longer has the same credit card, for instance? Scammers leaving you to hold the bag. Say a scammer tricks a victim into making a deposit, and then finds a way to redirect the withdrawal (see above). Would you be able to deal with the legal and administrative fallout?
Yes, you are then an online bank. This is an issue that computer games have had to figure out, when it was possible to move money both ways, cash to game gold and game gold to cash. (think Diablo's Real Money Auction House). If you allow people to store cash value in the game, and then take the cash value back out, then you are banking. Even though it's a game, you'll have people using it as a bank, and not playing the game at all but merely using it for funds storage and movement. Even if you surcharge significantly to deter this (i.e. $1 buys 90 game gold, and 110 game gold pays $1), there will always be people willing to pay the surcharge -- criminals. This is the whole point of the Homeland Security-driven &quot;Know Your Customer&quot; laws. The government doesn't want criminals using your real-money-trading platform to launder money. I know that you imagine a business model where this would be awesome. Actually you'll spend most of your time dealing with this kind of thing: Ann Onymous signs up and does nothing on your platform except load the account with money and send it to someone. Harold Hack is longtime customer who is active on the platform in all the normal ways. One day Harold adds a card, and loads an unusual amount of money onto the account. Both of them transfer money to Boris Badguy, who withdraws it. All fine, working as intended. But then, Ann and Harold's credit card payments reverse. They were stolen credit cards. But you're angry at Ann and Harold, and you dun them ferociously to make good their payment per your Terms of Service. Ann is unreachable. You don't believe Harold because deadbeats lie. It takes you awhile to realize this isn't first-party credit card fraud, and Harold's account was actually hacked. Harold doesn't normally post from Moldova at 3:30am. By this time, Boris is in the wind. Unfortunately, your business model doesn't let you make enough money to offset these kinds of losses. And it's hell on customer relations. You finally get arrested for using customer deposits to pay payroll, because you should've been keeping it in escrow. Being a bank is not for amateurs.
Who authorized the transfers? Banks don't transfer money without someone telling them to do so. Assuming it was your son there are several possibilities: You didn't log off from a banking session allowing him to access it. Legally, you authorized the transfers. You stored your sign-in credentials on the computer allowing your son to access them. Legally, you authorized the transfers. You gave your son your sign in credentials. Legally, you authorized the transfers. Your son hacked your account. Your son has committed fraud. Your contract with your bank may protect you from this, however, the bank will pursue your son for recovery and will likely refer the matter to the police.
the company does have the right to "verify the eligibility of the person and terminate the service to the ineligible at any time" is pretty unambiguous. They have assessed your eligibility, determined you don't have one and have terminated the service. They are completely within their rights to do this. If you feel that they have assessed your eligibility wrongly then you can dispute their assessment - either through whatever dispute resolution is detailed in the contract or by going to court if the contract is silent. The fact that they previously assessed you as eligible (or didn't actually make an assessment) is irrelevant.
They must give you a refund By saying they don't give refunds that are required by law they are engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct which will expose them to some serious fines. Report them to the relevant Italian authority. Presumably, you paid for this service with a credit/debit card. Contact your card provider and dispute the transaction - they will put the money back in your account and that will probably the last you hear of this company.