ING blocks account closures after Iker Jiménez ad ban

ING blames algorithm for ad veto and blocks customer exits

The withdrawal of ING's advertising from Iker Jiménez’s programs is costing the bank more than anticipated. The entity temporarily blocked the option to close accounts online just as a segment of its clientele began emptying their balances in protest. Mass cancellations, threats to report to Banco de España, and a wave of social media complaints illustrate the fallout. Meanwhile, bank management maintains an explanation that sounds like corporate science fiction: no human made the decision; an algorithm did.

From ad withdrawal to disabled exit button

The starting point is clear: ING stops advertising on Iker Jiménez’s platforms. In response, a portion of customers closed accounts, moved salaries and pension plans, and called for formal complaints to Banco de España (Spain’s central bank). The entity responded by blocking online account closure, according to reports circulating on social media. The detail matters: the dispute isn’t about rising fees, but whether account holders can close their accounts when and how they choose.

A recurring nuance worth noting: many who announced closures admitted they barely used the account. The boycott is as much about posturing as it is about protest, which is also an economic data point.

Why does ING say the algorithm, not a person, made the decision?

Because it is the most technically convenient alibi available. The bank’s initial version was different: its media strategy is planned weekly, and withdrawing ads from a program or channel responds to factors like content or commercial strategy, never specific hosts. Later, according to El Mundo and Libre Mercado, sources clarified it wasn’t a human decision, but the algorithm’s.

Finer analysis suggests two motives the bank never wanted to separate: corporate responsibility and advertising effectiveness. The hypothesis is that the real motive was the latter, yet nobody measured the cost of the public interpreting it as the former. Some comments call this excessive self-referentiality: believing one’s own propaganda.

Is it legal to block online account closure?

This question generates the most discomfort and remains unresolved without a judicial ruling. Affected users argue that a bank cannot refuse to close an account and, if removing the digital channel, must provide prior notice and a grace period. We emphasize: this is the customers’ interpretation, not a court verdict. The gap between what seems obvious and what the law says is often the difference between anger and winning.

Measurable cost: €300 per referral and stock drop with no clear culprit

One data point captures the moment: the entity is offering €300 for new clients referred by existing ones. A bank that drops an ad space one day and pays to acquire accounts the next implicitly admits acquisition has become difficult. This adds to years of investment building the orange brand as an alternative to traditional banking.

Regarding stock performance, we must be serious. Sector-wide share price declines are attributed to interest rate trends, not the boycott; anyone claiming otherwise is selling a fantasy. Fruta damage, however, doesn’t appear on intraday charts and takes months to manifest.

Two audiences, one brand

The core issue is segmentation. ING had long built its image through socially toned campaigns and diversity messages, while a wealthier segment of its clientele interpreted the ad withdrawal as an attack on themselves. The material’s calculation is simple: low-income voters don’t move large balances; wealthy clients do. Angering the latter to please the former is a business decision, and like any business decision, it can be wrong.

A bank alienating its most profitable customers over an ad withdrawal isn’t a tragedy—it’s a cost. The question is whether anyone put it in the spreadsheet before signing off.

It is reasonable to expect ING to fix communications, reactivate online closures, and let the matter die with two friendly tweets. Whether that repairs relationships with those already gone remains to be seen until the next balance sheet. A bank can buy years of image and lose them in a weekend; losing them is easy, recovering them is hard.