If you’re house bound, entirely dependent on a trusted third party help for your day-to-day living, and your bank only provides a debit card and PIN facility to authorise your transactions, then what choice do you have but to share those credentials with a trusted third party so they can buy food for you?

The bank chooses the authentication mechanism, their customers don’t get a choice. If that mechanism doesn’t work as intended when faced with common and entirely reasonable living situations, that’s the banks failure, not the customers failure.

So yes, because we afford massive protections and rights to banks in exchange for the necessary but largely low-risk activity (holding cash then returning it in exchange for a fee) - laws holding them responsible for failing to prevent theft do exist.

As this case shows, this isn't always true.