Smartphone Required (digital exclusion of people without smartphones)

I don’t think so because it would have to involve deliberate deception. (source)

The first customer to enounter the problem could send a registered letter to the vendor and then a second customer could perhaps later use the 1st customer’s letter to prove the vendor knew about the defect. The vendor would then perhaps try to argue that they did not know a particular customer was vulnerable to the defect. I don’t imagine that the debate could unfold in a chargeback dispute. A bank that is less consumer friendly than what you have in the US and UK would probably say it’s not obvious fraud.

Note as well fraud legally requires 5 components to all be present. I think 3 of them are: deception, someone must profit, someone must be damaged, … and I forgot the other two components.

(edit) I should add that when banks refer to “fraud” they may not be using the legal definition. I think it’s simpler for banks. They might ask “do you recognize the charge?” If yes, they likely don’t treat it as fraud. Of course I am speaking speculatively. I’ve not worked in a bank and a banker might have better answers.