Location based security


How far exactly, what distance, do the card and phone need to be from each other for the payment to be declined?
Within few meters? Few hundred meters? Few kilometers? Same country?


I guess they wont disclose that in detail, but my best guess would be “country”.


That’s right, I believe it is “country”.


This should answer the question :wink:


Not really, because this is the very thing that is unclear and what the OP asked about.


Your gps location defines it. Lets say if you’re at home and there’s a store 3blocks away, it will block the transaction.

It most likely has a radius of 10metres.
But just to be precise, could you confirm @AndreasK ? :slight_smile:


No offence, but I seriously doubt that would work (but Andreas might be able to confirm that - even though I dont think they will disclose it). They can determine your location but there is no way to reliably determine the merchant’s location and they would have way too many false negatives. Even if they limited it just to the city, hence country.


They are determining merchant location based on POS settings.
Had a transaction blocked due to location in Milano as Revolut saw the merchant as being in Rome.


They all have their exact latitude, longitude positions?

Alright, thanks for that detail, that would rule out “country”. “City” probably next.


Location as only the city most probably.
Maybe the address if they can pick it up from the POS…


I remember someone from Revolut saying it’s country based and not more granular. (I don’t think there are detailed location informations for merchants available that can be checked in real time.)


That would have been my assumption, but assuming that diak’s transaction really was refused because he was in Milan when Revolut assumed the merchant to be 500 kilometers south, there ought to be at least the possibility of finer control.


It really was :slight_smile:


Hmm: just hit this for the first time. Two French autoroute toll booths, 30km apart, same operator. The first one worked, the second not.

This “feature” sounds like it needs more thought, and definitely more explanation.