If you set it to 200, why did you then increase it by 1000- which is a) an insane increase and b) the perfect amount for the transaction to go through?
I didn't increase it, because I didn't know the transaction amount. I just set it to "off", which was the default. I also did this on a few of my cards, since I didn't know which card was hitting the limit.
> It seems like terrible UX to not allow/require individual approve/reject on transactions that triggered the limit.
This would have been a massive improvement, agreed. Maybe they have to make a call within a few seconds and can't ask your permission first, though, so maybe that's not possible.
Still, the notification could have shown "Your transaction to MERCHANT for AMOUNT on CARD was declined because of your limit". That would have avoided this whole disaster.
It is possible. Some other banks do it exactly this way. If the transaction amount is large enough, they ask you to authenticate on their app and confirm the transaction.
I suspect that by wanting to move fast they put less emphasis on the features that are more time-consuming to implement.
I guess they built the transaction limit assuming that your merchant would tell you the transaction was declined, but neglected to address the case where you weren't the person hitting the transaction limit with your card.
but this happens, I don’t know why the author said it doesn’t. i get notifcations with the merchant and the amount (that can also be seen in the app). maybe there was a temporary glitch?
hmm, you are right. I checked and the only notifications that I'm getting with the amount and merchant is when the card is blocked (I always keep it blocked and unblock it when I need to do purchases). I had the impression that's everywhere.