@capital: The UK Registrar of Companies lists Bittylicious as being in the business of “Other information technology service activities” ([link] (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08540541)). The UK’s regulators therefore do not consider the firm to be a financial intermediary. What then is the basis of Revolut’s claim that firm belongs to a class of institutions that they will not service?
There seems to be an important issue here; one that is being brought to the fore by the refusals of the UK’s banks to serve specific classes of users and businesses.
This is that in a increasingly cashless society, the ability for lawful parties to transact electronically among themselves becomes close to a fundamental right. Otherwise, the powerful will gain the ability to silence “inconvenient” people, by turning them into economic non-entities.
Returning to this specific case, I am curious to know: why has Revolut chosen to classify this particular firm as a “financial intermediary”, when the relevant UK regulator had not done so?