Contestability and Consumer Redress in Automated Islamic FinTech Decisions:A Maqasid-Based Framework for Saudi Arabia

Abstract

Automated eligibility screening, credit-data use, payment administration, and complaint triage are reshaping consumers’ interactions with financial technology (FinTech). Formal disclosure and Shariah product approval, although important, do not by themselves establish whether an affected consumer can identify an erroneous decision, challenge its grounds, secure an authorized reassessment, or obtain an effective remedy. This conceptual article asks how contestability and consumer redress can be specified for Islamic FinTech services in Saudi Arabia without conflating ethical recommendations with existing legal rights. Using a problem-driven integrative synthesis of maqasid al-Shariah scholarship, algorithmic contestability research, and verified Saudi financial-consumer rules, it develops the Maqasid-Based Contestability and Redress Framework (MCRF). The framework connects six functions: decision traceability, intelligible notice, evidence-enabled challenge, empowered human review, proportionate remedy, and institutional learning. A rights-evidence-remedy matrix translates the functions into auditable control questions, while two explicitly hypothetical BNPL scenarios demonstrate their use. The analysis distinguishes contesting a potentially erroneous determination from obtaining recourse by changing one’s future circumstances, and shows why a mere appeal button does not guarantee meaningful review. Its contribution is a procedural-accountability framework complementing, rather than duplicating, contract-focused digital gharar and institution-focused Shariah governance models. No platform, legal-compliance audit, or consumer outcomes are empirically evaluated; effectiveness and Shariah rulings remain matters for subsequent research and competent review.