Given that we are now forced to patronise a bank in Belgium, I believe bank contracts must now be regarded as signed under duress. So as a consequence there may be various laws that protect those who sign something under duress, which are now triggered.

For example under the GDPR, if the legal basis for data processing is consent, there is a rule that the consent must be “freely given” or it ceases to have the effect of consent. If you sign a bank contract under duress then IIUC it should have this effect: no change to any processing mentioned in the contract that is necessary for performance of the contract, but any processing that is not essential to performance of the contract would require consent. But since the bank does not legally have consent, they cannot lawfully process the data in those situations.

Can anyone else think of any other consequences that result when a bank contract is signed by force and under duress?

I once lost access to my money because my ID card the bank had on file expired. Instead of sending me a notice or warning, the bank simply blocked the bank card. That was the bank’s way of communicating. It got me in the door dancing for them the next moment the bank was open. If that same scenario were to play out now that agreement is signed under duress, I could argue that my consent to cut off my card as a communication mechanism was not freely given -- correct? Or am I misunderstanding something?