2 ms·
They were already upgrading their systems when the lawsuit happened. That's why they didn't fix it: "not worth it since we'll be replacing it all".
by arp242 3y ago
They were already upgrading their systems when the lawsuit happened. That's why they didn't fix it: "not worth it since we'll be replacing it all".
- jeroenhd 3y agoAnd ING's Unite be+nl project didn't end up meeting the dates they provided the court, so even if the court had accepted that excuse (it didn't), they still would've needed to alter their systems anyway. In fact, the attempt to unite the Dutch bank with their Belgian counterpart, which would've modernised the system, was cancelled in 2020 after barely making progress after four years, followed by a thousand jobs being cut worldwide. "We're going to replace this anyway" is a pretty bad excuse for a fix that should've been completed ten years ago, and with the replacement clearly not coming any time soon, especially when the you're legally obligated to provide the fix.