Small Claim 37037-05-25 Peer v. Mizrahi Tefahot: credit data report delivered in an open envelope

Background and facts: credit data report delivered in an open envelope at Mizrahi Tefahot Bank

Ran Peer, a customer of Mizrahi Tefahot Bank, filed a small claim against the bank in the Tel Aviv-Jaffa Small Claims Court. The claim, Small Claim 37037-05-25, was for NIS 20,000. It concerned the way his credit data report was handed to him at the bank branch.

According to the claim, on April 28, 2025 the plaintiff spoke twice by telephone with a bank service representative. He asked that his credit data report be sent to the branch only in a sealed envelope, with confidentiality maintained. According to him, the representative expressly confirmed this. The next day, April 29, 2025, he came to the branch to collect the report, and received it in an open and torn envelope.

The plaintiff sought compensation for invasion of privacy, distress, negligence and breach of statutory duty. He relied on the Credit Data Law, the Protection of Privacy Law and the Banking (Customer Service) Law, as well as on breach of a contractual undertaking and of a duty of trust.

The parties' arguments

According to the plaintiff, this was a personal and sensitive document. He argued that he felt shame, humiliation and loss of trust in the bank. He also argued that the bank offered no explanation, apology or acceptance of responsibility, and that this was a systemic failure in protecting the confidentiality of banking information.

The bank argued that banking secrecy was not breached and that the plaintiff was not harmed. According to the bank's version, a department manager at the bank opened the envelope, saw what it was and set it aside to await collection. The bank argued that no one saw the body of the report, that no outside party has access to such envelopes, and that the plaintiff did not prove damage.

What the court decided in Small Claim 37037-05-25

Judge Nurit Taviv Mizrahi partly allowed the claim. It was held that there is no dispute that the envelope was handed to the plaintiff open. The court found credible the plaintiff's version that he received the envelope open and torn, and that he had asked for the report to be sent in a sealed envelope. Recordings of the calls, which the bank filed under a court decision, showed that the bank representative expressly told the plaintiff that the report would be sent in a sealed envelope.

The court reviewed the legal framework. Section 58 of the Credit Data Law prohibits a person who received information under the law from disclosing it to another. The Protection of Privacy Law defines information on a person's financial activity as information of special sensitivity, and allows compensation of up to NIS 50,000 without proof of damage. The court noted that case law has recognized a customer's right to confidentiality of information about his accounts and his activity at the bank.

However, the court accepted the bank's argument that banking secrecy was not breached. It was held that the information remained within the walls of the bank, and it was not proven that it was passed to a third party outside the bank. Therefore the claim of breach of the duty of confidentiality under the Credit Data Law and the Banking (Customer Service) Law was rejected. For the same reason, it was held that there was no invasion of privacy under the definitions of the Protection of Privacy Law.

At the same time, the court accepted the plaintiff's claim of distress. The plaintiff expected to receive, in a sealed envelope, a report containing financial information of special sensitivity, as he had been promised, and received it open. The court noted that even if the duty of confidentiality was not breached, the bank would have been expected to act differently, and at least to offer compensation, an apology or an explanation.

The compensation was set at NIS 2,200, taking into account that no damage beyond the plaintiff's feelings was proven. The bank was also ordered to pay legal costs of NIS 600. The amounts are to be paid within 30 days, failing which they will bear linkage differentials and interest. The court also addressed the bank representative's claim that it is customary to open envelopes that arrive at the branch addressed to a customer. It remarked that if this is a common practice with respect to credit data reports, it should be examined and a change should be considered.

Quotes from the judgment

"Thus, exposure, distribution or use with respect to third parties constitutes an infringement of confidentiality and privacy, but this is not so with respect to leaving the information within the walls of the bank."

Paragraph 18 of the judgment (translated from Hebrew).

"I am surprised that the bank did not see and does not see any flaw in this conduct of handing a personal and sensitive report to a customer in an open and torn envelope"

Paragraph 19 of the judgment (translated from Hebrew).

"This course of conduct should be examined, and its change and correction considered. If only for the sake of providing proper and respectful service to the customer."

Paragraph 21 of the judgment (translated from Hebrew).

What it means for Mizrahi Tefahot customers

The judgment distinguishes between two questions. The first is whether the bank breached the duty of confidentiality. Here it was held that a bank employee looking at a document, when the information did not leave the bank, is not a breach of the duty of confidentiality. The second is whether the bank's conduct toward the customer justifies compensation. Here it was held that handing over a sensitive report in an open envelope, contrary to an express undertaking and without an apology or explanation, justifies compensation for distress.

In this case, it was the recordings of the calls with the bank that proved the undertaking to deliver the report in a sealed envelope. Other banking secrecy issues are collected on the page banking secrecy at Mizrahi Tefahot and in the privacy section.

Sources

• The judgment in Small Claim 37037-05-25 Peer v. Mizrahi Tefahot Bank, September 30, 2025 (PDF, law.co.il website)

Frequently asked questions about court rulings against Mizrahi Tefahot Bank

How to cite

Small Claim 37037-05-25 (Ran Peer v. Mizrahi Tefahot Bank), Tel Aviv Small Claims Court, 30.09.2025. Source: Net HaMishpat (Israeli courts database), case Small Claim 37037-05-25 (Ran Peer v. Mizrahi Tefahot Bank).