I guess the number one payment service is still the number one choice for scammers and hackers. How many of the 7 million accounts belong to guys like these? Gives real meaning to the term "fast, secure and free."
posted on March 30, 2001 10:28:40 AM new
If you actually read that 'frightening article' there are some flaws in the diary or some elements that wouldn't fly with me. There have been several articles by Bob Sullivan that always seem to have the same theme. I loved one response to his article.
How does the 'scam artist' purchasing via PayPal get sellers to ship high dollar items to an address other than the confirmed billing address? It would seem that a lot of cooperation from "a less than aware" (stupid) seller is required.
posted on March 30, 2001 12:08:21 PM new
Hi yisgood,
This is not a hacking incident. This is someone using stolen credit cards. And now you know why we restrict accounts at times (while trying not to impact legitimate users---such as isolating the transaction in question and not restricting the recipients account.)
You should find out a little more about AVS screens and the like. It might help you understand why fraud happens, what the limitations are, and what the risk is (we also have proprietary techniques for identifying possible fraud and it is also why we ask for additional information when a user's card is rejected, such as their ID and cc statement).
Credit card fraud is always a possibility (when accepting credit card payments) and that is why we ask the sellers to follow the details of the Seller Protection Program.
posted on March 30, 2001 02:01:04 PM new
I know about AVS screens. What concerns me is the reports of stolen credit cards being used with verified accounts. Theoretically, it shouldnt be possible. And if Paypal's response to their inability to stop this is to just take it back from the seller, as has also been reported numerous times, so much for "secure."
posted on March 30, 2001 02:11:21 PM new
Hi yisgood,
As you do not directly work within the payment services industry or the credit card industry, I do find it kind of interesting that you would claim to be an expert on fraud or issues related to it.
Credit card fraud is always a possibility. Verified accounts are an additional identification measure to further support identity (and it allows us to give a greater comfort level that you know who you are dealing with).
A verified person is someone that has verified information we have sent to a bank account (that has been opened by someone that has provided sufficient legal documentation to support their identity for the qualifications in opening a bank account.) This is a fraud deterrent.
This allows us to offer certain protections to our users that you will not find in most payment services (such as charge back protection).
posted on March 30, 2001 02:26:41 PM new
>>As you do not directly work within the payment services industry or the credit card industry, I do find it kind of interesting that you would claim to be an expert on fraud or issues related to it. <<
I never claimed to be an expert in credit card fraud. I just said that I knew about AVS. Amd my knowledge, as lacking as it may be, seems to be more than some of Paypal's customer service. I was one of those who recommended over a year ago that you give the sellers the buyer's billing address to reduce fraud and you fought us on that and called it an invasion of privacy. Who turned out to be correct? I was one of those who recommended an accept/reject method for payment. Why did your "experts" take over a year to come up with this?
Before I set up my web site, Payment service ratings I had meetings and conversations with several of the payment services, including a major bank which has launched a payment service and the fraud department of another major bank which is about to.
But if I made a mistake in fact in my previous posts where I wondered:
- how can someone open a verified account with a stolen credit card
- why does Paypal seem to be the favorite service of these scammers
posted on March 30, 2001 02:37:06 PM new
Hi yisgood,
I do recall seeing, in another thread, that you stated you signed an NDA (non-disclosure agreement) with another company and I find it hard to support your claims of independent analysis of any payment service. You have also admitted to working with other companies in this one.
Actually, the primary way to deter fraud through a credit card payment is to ship to the verified billing address of the credit card, which is released to the recipient of a credit card payment. Users can set their options, and risk levels, based on what they are comfortable with.
The Seller Protection Program, an issue that you asked for (in addition to the address release and accept/deny options), is an additional way to deter credit card fraud.
I already explained verification to you. The end user has provided legal documentation to a financial institution to support their identity in opening a bank account. We confirm the bank account, which gives greater credibility to the identity of the individual in questions.
The information you post at times is quite dangerous, and more often than not, decidedly one-sided. YYou run up fears about account restrictions (quite rare and they can be resolved very quickly these days with additional information).
I don't object to your feedback, but I do object to some of the claims you make with only half of the information relative to any posting you view as truthful.
posted on March 30, 2001 03:19:35 PM newyisgood- how can someone open a verified account with a stolen credit card
The person 'could' open a verified account with a stolen credit card. They'd have to have the credit card number, the person's name, the security code on the back, and the billing address (not sure about the phone number). They'd also have to have a bank account where they could confirm 2 deposits. Now they've got a 'verified' PayPal account opened with a stolen credit card.
BUT changing the billing address wouldn't be so easy, from my experiences I had to make a call from a phone number on file or submit the change of address via my statement. So you'd still be faced with making purchases where a seller would agree to send to an 'unconfirmed address' on a high dollar item worthy of such a scam. Do you think the seller will agree to send to an unconfirmed address? Would you? Doesn't PayPal give enough warning in their payment letter about shipping to unconfirmed addresses?
All of this would have been for naught once the card was reported stolen. Plus you've had to open a bank account giving them information that could be damning if it was accurate.
With stolen international credit cards you'd have to also get access to the credit card statement. That doesn't seem like a scammer's dream either.
yisgood- why does Paypal seem to be the favorite service of these scammers
Other services would be much easier to use a stolen credit card with, BillPoint and PayDirect are inviting by comparison. With that in mind I don't think you can call PayPal a scammers 'favorite', maybe it was, but the 'confirmed address' is real tough to work around, it requires a seller that doesn't make a good judgement even when given the tools to make that judgement.
>>I do recall seeing, in another thread, that you stated you signed an NDA (non-disclosure agreement) with another company and I find it hard to support your claims of independent analysis of any payment service. You have also admitted to working with other companies in this one. <<
As I state on my site, I have not received a dime from any of these companies. I will work (for free) with any company that contacts me and that includes Paypal. What I do is discuss their policies and make suggestions. One major bank made me sign a non-disclosure agreement. Another didn't make me sign anything but told me any specifics could not be discussed. I did speak at length with one of your major investors, as you probably recall and I was also asked at the time not to reveal anything I was told. My goal here is not to see any payment service go under. I want them all to succeed, all to treat their customers with respect, all to do their utmost to deter fraud and all to make their TOS clear, simple and honest. I don't mind a company that says, "In the event of a charge back, the seller loses" as long as this is clear. I do mind when a company pretends that the seller is protected and then doesn't follow through. Paypal is not the only one guilty of this practice, but they are the only ones trumpeting a protection scheme that is basically worthless.
I also note that you had no problems with my posts when I was a Paypal cheerleader. But when my opinion changed, after numerous incidents in which I tried to help my scammed customers and some sellers I knew (and I contacted you directly and got nowhere) suddenly you accuse me of being one-sided. I guess the only side that is telling the truth is Paypal and not the hundreds of scammed victims. I guess hundreds of folks all got together and made up the same story about accounts being restricted with no warning, charge backs being made with no contact, weeks of calling paypal and getting nowhere.
>>Actually, the primary way to deter fraud through a credit card payment is to ship to the verified billing address of the credit card, which is released to the recipient of a credit card payment. Users can set their options, and risk levels, based on what they are comfortable with. <<
And if you recall, you fought us on this for a year. You said that giving the buyer's address was an invasion of their privacy. For a year you fought us and gave scammers a free reign before PP finally gave in and now you claim that you "listened to us." The other payment services I have talked to were far more receptive.
>>The Seller Protection Program, an issue that you asked for (in addition to the address release and accept/deny options), is an additional way to deter credit card fraud.
The information you post at times is quite dangerous, and more often than not, decidedly one-sided. YYou run up fears about account restrictions (quite rare and they can be resolved very quickly these days with additional information).
I don't object to your feedback, but I do object to some of the claims you make with only half of the information relative to any posting you view as truthful.<<
But the many complaints here and to the BBB clearly show there is no protection. Sellers are still being charged back for merchandise sent to the verified address. And even if account restrictions are rare, when they happen it takes weeks to months to get it resolved. Buyers still think that if they pay a verified seller, they are protected. Then they learn that this is only if 1) ebay first pays their claim then PP will pay the balance and 2) PP will only pay it if they can recover from the seller. So most scammed buyers are out of luck. And restricting accounts while allowing other folks to pay into it is theft in my opinion. You are stealing money from other innocent people to recover your losses. Imagine if someone sends me a check and I tell them "I'm keeping your check because a previous customer's check bounced."
Sellers and buyers here and on other sites have posted very detailed and clear indications of what happened, including the email received from Paypal. You responded to those sellers in a way that clearly supports their story. When I asked you to explain how that can happen, since it contradicts your claim of buyer or seller protection, you replied to the effect that you are not allowed to say more. So if there is another side, we have yet to hear it. In a few cases where I knew the buyer or seller personally and contacted you directly, I still saw PP dragging its feet and making excuses.
I will say that the number of complaints, particularly about restricted accounts, does seem to be dropping. But what I have not seen is any apologies to the wronged victims, any attempt to provide speedy resolution to these problems, any indication that Paypal feels that they are even 1% at fault. You always blame the customer, his ISP, etc. When a customer of mine reports a problem, my first reply is "I'm sorry you're having a problem. If I made a mistake, let me fix it." If you think you're so infallible, change your name to PopePal.
posted on March 31, 2001 11:39:31 PM new
Hi yisgood,
Yes, account restrictions have gone down and this is because of: better information on our end and stronger identification measures; policies regarding account restriction have been redefined; and more customer support (75 new representatives have been added).
Account restrictions are extremely rare, but they seem to bring the most attention on the boards. Most users, probably 99.9% of the user base, will not have to worry about this occurring.
Restricted accounts---here's a scenario:
Person opens account. Sells items on an auction site and receives a fair amount of money.
Multiple users contact us about this seller with negative feedback and they have not shipped product in all cases. This issue has dragged on for several weeks and we have multiple users, not just one, complaining about the same individual.Emails or phone calls to the seller are not returned. Account can be restricted (could be a scam).
Apologies to the wronged victims-if a user is restricted for a valid reason (on our end), but should not have been because policy wasn't followed or there was a clerical/technical error (and the issue comes to my attention) I will apologize and attempt to get it resolved quickly.
I have worked for the company since December of 1999. The terms of use relative to charge backs have been the same since then and have not changed. However, we did develop the Seller Protection Program to eliminate liability to the Seller provided that a specific set of rules are followed. (shipping to a verified address is not the only item needed to be protected---please review the terms of use).
I appreciate your feedback (and many of the suggestions you made have been implemented). To be honest, they were good ideas, but I do take issue with the fact that these things have been done and you continue to report very rare account restriction issues as being indicative of how things go (please go through all of the posts and count up the specific issues relative to account restriction and compare them against the user base and the total number of posts---the number would be extremely low)
I do not blame the users, but I do provide additional information to them about where the issues can be if it is not tied to the service (such as connectivity---if I can access the site, their ISP could be having a connectivity issue on their end--or there is an issue with their browser/cache (cache is the most commonly reported technical item---how to send money is the #1 reason customers contact us and not restricted accounts).
I also have to do something different than one-on-one customer contact---I have to address the user's concern(s), as well as post to policy for the benefit of anyone reading the post.Some users take offense when they think I am ignoring their concerns (or putting a spin on issues), but I am actually doing it because I really have to.
We have six million plus users and we process well over 100,000 transactions per day. The majority of these go through without a hitch. Certain issues(such as fraud/Buyer Protection/Seller Protection) do take longer to resolve and they do depend on the user getting the requested information back to us.
I will not deny that certain items have not dropped out of customer service that should not have. However, this happens in every customer service organization and is not indicative of the overall levels of service that we provide (I believe that nearly 90% of all customer inquiries are answered within 48 hours). We can only continue to refine our policies and procedures to make sure these items happen as little as possible. It is also the reason I am out here (to make sure that as much closure is done on outstanding items as possible) and I can also educate users on how not to have problems with the service.
Here is a payment question (related to your issues about Buyers/Sellers being defrauded)
If I send you a check or money order for a purchase does it mean you are going to send me the item? (I am not talking about "you", but I am referring to someone that is trying to defraud someone.) Do you then blame the place that you bought the money order (say a convenience store)or wrote the check from (any bank) for someone cashing the item and then not sending it? Or do you blame the post office that they delivered the check or money order to an address you specified? I think your answer is going to be, "No". But we DO try to prosecute these individuals whenever possible.
Our verification methods,and policies for items like the Seller Protection Program, are in place to deter fraud to the largest degree possible (through the identification of both the recipients and senders of money). And these are the reasons our fraud and charge back rates are low.
This is kind of a long response to your comments and I apologize for that. Boards can be a great source for information, but they can also contain a fair amount of misinformation and rumoring. All I would ask of you, in particular, is that you take some comments with a grain of salt and think critically about them.We are a service making on-line payments safe and we are developing products that our users ask for...(we are not stealing user's money, going bankrupt, or any of the items that are commonly reported).
Do we make mistakes? Yes, but we address them as quickly as possible. As a service, we have an obligation to.
Have I made mistakes? Certainly. Can a user make mistakes? Certainly.
What is a single guy doing posting on a board on a Saturday nite? If you had a date, we can all guess how it went. <g>
>>Account restrictions are extremely rare, but they seem to bring the most attention on the boards. Most users, probably 99.9% of the user base, will not have to worry about this occurring. <<
Again, I have noticed that this problem has dropped. What hasn't dropped is that 1) it often happens with no notice to the user. When I posted links to several complaints about this, you said maybe they accidentally deleted the Paypal email or maybe their ISP was down. I think most of us would agree that this is a silly answer. Why couldn't you just say, "sorry, we goofed and we're going to fix it"? That would have at least given us the hope that it would improve. But blaming the user sends the message that PP doesn't care and isn't going to improve. 2) When it does happen, it takes weeks to months to correct, even when the person emails and calls PP multiple times. Many people have come to the realization that the only way to get action out of PP is to publicly embarass them either here or with the BBB. 3) When you restrict accounts, you allow others to continue paying into them. In my opinion, you are stealing money from innocent third parties to cover your losses. It would be like me cheating my second buyer because my first buyer bounced a check.
One of the reasons I suggested that ALL payments must be accepted is to avoid this problem. If a buyer pays a seller, the buyer should have the ability to cancel the payment until the seller accepts it. This would eliminate the problems of 1) buyers paying into restricted accounts and losing their money or making even further charge backs, 2) buyers who pay into the wrong account or pay the wrong amount, 3) sellers who get the "you've got cash" message and it turns out to be wrong, 4) sellers who don't want to accept paypal but use it for paying and keep getting payments they don't want. Sellers should get into the habit of going into their account and claiming payments. Buyers should get into the habit of checking their accounts and making sure payments were claimed before accusing sellers of cheating.
>>Restricted accounts---here's a scenario:
Person opens account. Sells items on an auction site and receives a fair amount of money.
Multiple users contact us about this seller with negative feedback and they have not shipped product in all cases. This issue has dragged on for several weeks and we have multiple users, not just one, complaining about the same individual.Emails or phone calls to the seller are not returned. Account can be restricted (could be a scam). <<
Here's what's been reported:
Seller with hundreds of positives and few to no negatives has PP account restricted because ONE buyer made a charge back without even contacting PP. Even though buyer violated PP TOS, seller is the one punished. Often this restriction remains for weeks after seller has proven shipment.
>>Apologies to the wronged victims-if a user is restricted for a valid reason (on our end), but should not have been because policy wasn't followed or there was a clerical/technical error (and the issue comes to my attention) I will apologize and attempt to get it resolved quickly. <<
I have yet to see a single apology. All I have seen is blaming the user, the user's ISP or this mysterious "there are other issues involved that I can't reveal." I suggested months ago to the person who called me to discuss PP, that there be a hotline specifically for restricted accounts. Though he agreed that this is a good idea, I have yet to see any action. If an account was restricted for a day or two or even a week in specific cases while an investigation was made, it wouldn't be such a problem. But PP's attitude is to restrict the account, ignore the customer and make him/her jump through hoops for weeks to months and this is unacceptable even if it is "only 1%" who have to worry. Would you open an account in a bank that is known for freezing 1% of accounts for weeks? As for accepting money into this account from additional buyers, I see this as theft, stealing from an innocent party to cover your losses on another transaction.
>>we did develop the Seller Protection Program to eliminate liability to the Seller provided that a specific set of rules are followed. (shipping to a verified address is not the only item needed to be protected---please review the terms of use). <<
And I have spoken to sellers and read posts from sellers who followed all these rules and had their accounts restricted anyway. And after they posted publicly, you got involved and the restrictions were removed. This indicates to me that the restrictions were wrong to begin with and that PP ignored the complaint until it became a public embarrasment. That is my concern. This area of customer service has not improved.
>>I do not blame the users<<
When a number of users reported account restrictions with no contact from PP, you said that maybe their email was down, maybe they accidentally erased the message. Sounds to me like blaming the user. A more logical explanation would be PP goofed.
>>I will not deny that certain items have not dropped out of customer service that should not have. However, this happens in every customer service organization<<
When it is a problem as serious as a restricted account, it is bad enough, but understandable, if the user has to call once or twice. But users have reported dozens of calls and emails, speaking to reps who say only the fraud dept can help, sorry they dont have a phone, they'll call you back, yes I know you were promised that five times already... This goes beyond "an item that has not dropped." This is an item that PP chose to ignore.
>>I believe that nearly 90% of all customer inquiries are answered within 48 hours).<<
Yes, the easy ones. "how do I send a payment?" "Did my payment go through?" But the restricted accounts and scammed customers are the ones that need help most and they are the ones being ignored. Sort of like buying a computer in a store with 100 salesman but only one tech support guy who comes in for an hour on Tuesday. They can boast that 90% of customers' questions are answered, as long as the question is "how much does this cost?" but the 10% that doesn't get answered are more serious, like "why doesn't it work?".
>>We can only continue to refine our policies and procedures to make sure these items happen as little as possible.<<
Do you mean you are refining your policies as little as possible? (sorry, couldnt resist). I am still waiting for the day when I hear that someone had a charge back or restricted account and called PP and it was solved within a week. Right now everything is referred to the fraud dept and supposedly they don't have a phone. Doesn't indicate that PP cares.
>>It is also the reason I am out here (to make sure that as much closure is done on outstanding items as possible) and I can also educate users on how not to have problems with the service. <<
I never question your hard work. In my opinion, you are PP's entire customer service. A few more like you and they can fire all the other 500.
>>Here is a payment question (related to your issues about Buyers/Sellers being defrauded)
If I send you a check or money order for a purchase does it mean you are going to send me the item? (I am not talking about "you", but I am referring to someone that is trying to defraud someone.) Do you then blame the place that you bought the money order (say a convenience store)or wrote the check from (any bank) for someone cashing the item and then not sending it? Or do you blame the post office that they delivered the check or money order to an address you specified? I think your answer is going to be, "No".<<
I have said over and over that the real problem is 1) users who think that they can do whatever foolish thing they want and expect someone else to take the risk. PP's promise of protection further enforces this delusion. and 2) stupid credit card rules that make it too easy to charge back. The original problem is not Paypal's. But the end result is that the wrong party usually gets punished. What I would expect to see is if a buyer does a charge back without contacting PP, PP freezes the BUYER's account - not the seller's.
>>But we DO try to prosecute these individuals whenever possible. <<
Again, you know about this from the inside, but from the outside it looks to me like most scamming sellers get away with it. Buyers have been told "sorry, there is no money in the seller's account." Sellers who were the recipients of fraudulent funds have been told that PP will not release the scammer's private info. I would think that once it was proven that someone was cheated, they have the right to know who cheated them.
>>All I would ask of you, in particular, is that you take some comments with a grain of salt and think critically about them. <<
There are many anti-PP posts to which I don't respond because there is not enough information. There are others where I have explained to the poster that the problem is not a PP issue or that the poster is at fault. I am not anti-PP. I have never been scammed, had a charge back or restricted account. But I do know honest folks who have and I do know that there are still problems and I have seen little effort by PP to address these.
>>We are a service making on-line payments safe and we are developing products that our users ask for...(we are not stealing user's money, going bankrupt, or any of the items that are commonly reported). <<
I also fought that ridiculous post about PP going bankrupt soon. I can't speak for what the case might be a year from now. As for stealing people's money, I don't think that PP is crooked, that there are any plans to run off with user's accounts, etc. But I do think that some of the ways they address fraud by taking money from innocent third parties, borders on theft. We have all seen posts where A paid B with a stolen CC and B bought something from C and C's account got restricted. I see this as theft from C and any of C's customers who paid him.
>>Do we make mistakes? Yes, but we address them as quickly as possible. As a service, we have an obligation to.
Have I made mistakes? Certainly. Can a user make mistakes? Certainly. <<
This is the first time I have heard you admit that Popepal isn't infallible. And don't use "we." YOU try to address things as quickly as possible. PP as a company does not.
How about another contest? When you verify your account, you must also send a photo. If you have a nice portfolio and a nice photo, you win a date with Damon. He will take you to the fabulous PP office, where you will spend Saturday nite answering posts on auctionwatch.
posted on April 2, 2001 02:43:45 PM new
I just want to say, and I think a lot of people also would, thank you Yisgood for fighting the way PayPal is treating its customers. I was one of the people who had a restricted account and paypal would not answer my phone calls or emails for several months.
I also have some basic questions. One thing I am just curious about is why uaru works so hard to support paypal on these boards. I can only guess he must work for PayPal.
Also, for paypaldamon, I would like to hear answers to the following two questions Yisgood has already asked:
-Why does paypal allow for money to continue flowing into a restricted account? Do they just want to steal it until they complete their "investigation?"
-Can you give me a good reason that you claim 90% of emails are answered within 48 hours, but whenever people on these boards post about their experiences with their accounts being restricted, their emails are usually not answered for MONTHS???
posted on April 2, 2001 03:40:48 PM new
Hi ben08,-
Why does paypal allow for money to continue flowing into a restricted account? Do they just want to steal it until they complete their "investigation?"
(Many sellers requested this. Accounts used to be locked if there was a charge back and would not be unlocked until the dispute was resolved.This is a way to allow for a dispute to be resolved without the seller having their reputation tarnished, while still being able to accept funds. Account restrictions are rare and can be cleared up quickly with the requested documentation. This is because transactions can be isolated without impacting the account.)
-Can you give me a good reason that you claim 90% of emails are answered within 48 hours, but whenever people on these boards post about their experiences with their accounts being restricted, their emails are usually not answered for MONTHS???
(I already explained this above. Things can, and do fall through the cracks, but they are not indicative of overall service levels. In addition, more complex cases---such as---fraud,Buyer Protection, Seller Protection,etc do take longer because information may be required from one or more of the parties involved.)
posted on April 2, 2001 04:13:15 PM new
Hi yisgood,
What is a single guy doing posting on a board on a Saturday nite? If you had a date, we can all guess how it went. (LOL!---Sorry, but that is too funny---the date contest may not be a bad idea
The post is quite long, and I may miss something, but I will respond where I can---
Again, I have noticed that this problem has dropped. What hasn't dropped is that 1) it often happens with no notice to the user.
(Emails are sent at the time of account restriction. Not sounding defensive, but email delivery can be very complex and there are issues. I made a recommendation that the reason why should appear on the site when the user logs in (as well) to describe the problem to some degree and how to rectify)
When I posted links to several complaints about this, you said maybe they accidentally deleted the Paypal email or maybe their ISP was down. I think most of us would agree that this is a silly answer. Why couldn't you just say, "sorry, we goofed and we're going to fix it"? That would have at least given us the hope that it would improve. But blaming the user sends the message that PP doesn't care and isn't going to improve.
2) When it does happen, it takes weeks to months to correct, even when the person emails and calls PP multiple times. Many people have come to the realization that the only way to get action out of PP is to publicly embarass them either here or with the BBB.
(Again, not stating that customer cases have not gone where they shouldn't have gone or that they were not resolved in a timely manner. However, this is not indicative of overall customer service levels for a wide variety of issues that are submitted. More complex ones, (such as Buyer Protection/Fraud/Seller Protection) take longer to resolve and are often dependent on information being provided from one or more parties)
3) When you restrict accounts, you allow others to continue paying into them. In my opinion, you are stealing money from innocent third parties to cover your losses. It would be like me cheating my second buyer because my first buyer bounced a check.
(No money is lost to either party and I would appreciate an explanation to this comment. This feature was actually requested by sellers so that they would not impact the relationships with their users. The pending reversal, or restricting a transaction in question, has had a large impact on making sure that accounts are not restricted (as they often were in the past) over one transaction. Restrictions are lifted with the documentation requested)
I have said over and over that the real problem is
1) users who think that they can do whatever foolish thing they want and expect someone else to take the risk. PP's promise of protection further enforces this delusion.( Users do have to take some measure of knowing who they are dealing with.Buyers do have fraud protection on some auction sites and we extend the coverage provided by these sites the user completes, and provides documentation that a successful claim has been done. In the event of a scam, we go after the party doing the scamming, but this can take months (because of interaction with law enforcement). However, we will reimburse users if recovery can be made. This is all on the site)
and 2) stupid credit card rules that make it too easy to charge back. The original problem is not Paypal's. But the end result is that the wrong party usually gets punished. What I would expect to see is if a buyer does a charge back without contacting PP, PP freezes the BUYER's account - not the seller's
(The Buyer's account can be restricted. If a charge back occurs, the SELLER receives an email about what transaction is in question and that the item is in a pending reversal (and how to view the transaction). The Seller account is not restricted)
Credit card fraud-please review charge backs under the terms of use. The recipient agrees to be liable for charge backs (which could be fraud), but we offer protection if the Seller follows very specific rules). This is also on the web site and not any different than any payment service or even a merchant account.
Again, you know about this from the inside, but from the outside it looks to me like most scamming sellers get away with it. Buyers have been told "sorry, there is no money in the seller's account." Sellers who were the recipients of fraudulent funds have been told that PP will not release the scammer's private info. I would think that once it was proven that someone was cheated, they have the right to know who cheated them.
(There are very valid legal reasons for not doing so.This is proprietary information and any lawyer will tell you the information can only be released under legal order. Would you like me to give out your home address and phone number without your consent because someone claimed that you had defrauded them?)
Sorry if I missed anything---perhaps we should both go back to shorter posts.
posted on April 2, 2001 05:34:13 PM new
Hi Damon,
Let's try again.
(Emails are sent at the time of account restriction. Not sounding defensive, but email delivery can be very complex and there are issues. I made a recommendation that the reason why should appear on the site when the user logs in (as well) to describe the problem to some degree and how to rectify)
You keep saying that. But users keep posting how their accounts were restricted with NO emails or they were given 3 days to mail in their proof but Paypal restricted their accounts before receiving the proof. Many users have reported numerous attempts to contact PP by phone and email and getting nowhere. You keep repeating how it *should* work but not how it DOES work.
(Again, not stating that customer cases have not gone where they shouldn't have gone or that they were not resolved in a timely manner. However, this is not indicative of overall customer service levels for a wide variety of issues that are submitted. More complex ones, (such as Buyer Protection/Fraud/Seller Protection) take longer to resolve and are often dependent on information being provided from one or more parties)
But we have seen numerous posts about people who called PP over and over. Each time they are asked to submit the same info over and over. This has nothing to do with how long it takes to resolve. It has to do with lousy and uncaring customer service.
3) When you restrict accounts, you allow others to continue paying into them. In my opinion, you are stealing money from innocent third parties to cover your losses. It would be like me cheating my second buyer because my first buyer bounced a check.
(No money is lost to either party and I would appreciate an explanation to this comment. This feature was actually requested by sellers so that they would not impact the relationships with their users.)
Without going into the merits of who was right or wrong, PP restricted Stoney Brody's account. He begged PP to freeze it completely so no one could pay into it. For about 6 weeks, PP refused. In the meantime, about another $10,000 of funds which PP claims is fraudulent were paid in and they want Stoney to reimburse them. Why? PP accepted it without his permission.
Now why do you say no money is lost to either party? What about the folks who pay into an account restricted for fraud after the seller has absconded? Doesn't PP apply these funds to the previous debt? Several sellers have posted here that when a charge back was made and their account restricted, PP took the next payments and applied it toward the balance. If the seller decides not to ship because, after all, he isn't getting the money, then who loses it?
I have said over and over that the real problem is
1) users who think that they can do whatever foolish thing they want and expect someone else to take the risk. PP's promise of protection further enforces this delusion.
(Users do have to take some measure of knowing who they are dealing with.Buyers do have fraud protection on some auction sites and we extend the coverage provided by these sites the user completes, and provides documentation that a successful claim has been done. In the event of a scam, we go after the party doing the scamming, but this can take months (because of interaction with law enforcement). However, we will reimburse users if recovery can be made. This is all on the site)
I still keep coming across users bidding on auctions where I KNOW there is a scam going on. Seller has zero rating, is selling something way below dealer cost, has hotmail id and no contact info. When I email the buyer and suggest he check out the seller a little, he replied, "I'll pay with Paypal because of the protection." If you recall, I emailed you about one of these auctions in progress and the seller was NARUd the next day. Many people think your protection covers more than it does and you can't expect the average buyer to read your long and ever-changing TOU.
(The Buyer's account can be restricted. If a charge back occurs, the SELLER receives an email about what transaction is in question and that the item is in a pending reversal (and how to view the transaction). The Seller account is not restricted)
What PP should do is post very clearly: ALL disputes must go through PP. If you do a charge back with your CC company directly, your account will be restricted. And then they should stick to it. I have seen many posts about sellers hit with false charge backs from buyers. I have never heard that the buyer was ever penalized for this. Some folks charge things back just because they can.
Sellers who were the recipients of fraudulent funds have been told that PP will not release the scammer's private info. I would think that once it was proven that someone was cheated, they have the right to know who cheated them.
(There are very valid legal reasons for not doing so.This is proprietary information and any lawyer will tell you the information can only be released under legal order. Would you like me to give out your home address and phone number without your consent because someone claimed that you had defrauded them?)
I did not say that you should release the info on a claim. But once you KNOW that there has been a scam, how can you protect the guilty? I sent you an example where the seller used a false address and phone number to register for the auction site, accepted payment, never shipped, did not respond to emails and still PP refused to do anything for the scammed buyer. How much proof does it take to realize that this guy was committing premeditated fraud? PP didn't go after him but neither could the buyer.
posted on April 2, 2001 06:10:06 PM new
Hi yisgood,
I can only speak to how it should work or does work because that is all I can do(email). Unless I was physically there when a user was checking their email, there is no way for me to confirm that it was received. I am not using this as an excuse. This is something that you couldn't confirm unless you were there as well. This is the simple reason that I state what the system does and how it should work. Could there be other issues? Yes. That's what I am also asking you to look at.
With all due respect (and I am not trying to disprespect any member of the boards) do you take everything you have ever viewed on the internet as being true? This is why I come out and speak to policy only (because I can't validate the issues of basically anonymous posters without having their account information).
But we have seen numerous posts about people who called PP over and over. Each time they are asked to submit the same info over and over. This has nothing to do with how long it takes to resolve. It has to do with lousy and uncaring customer service.
(This can happen. Having worked in a call center for years I can state that this does happen. Not on purpose, but it does happen. Part of the information may not be received or it may not be legible. As an example, the driver's license may be sumbitted, but none of the information can be viewed because the grey scale or photo option was not selected. There could also be a backlog. There are a number of reasons this happens, but it is not done on purpose).I just resolved a case where the user ID was not clear---I emailed him and asked for it again and explained why there was a delay. It has been solved.)
Without going into the merits of who was right or wrong, PP restricted Stoney Brody's account. He begged PP to freeze it completely so no one could pay into it. For about 6 weeks, PP refused. In the meantime, about another $10,000 of funds which PP claims is fraudulent were paid in and they want Stoney to reimburse them.
(The response to this issue is already out)
Why? PP accepted it without his permission.
(Payments are accepted into an account because a user has one one and has directed a paying party to make payments into that account. A user also has the option of accepting/denying payments based on the preferences they want.A user also agreed to the terms of use relative to charge backs. Again---you are speaking to know the entire set of details of a case when I can only speak to policy.)
Now why do you say no money is lost to either party? What about the folks who pay into an account restricted for fraud after the seller has absconded?
(If money is left in the account, we refund it to the user. If no money is left, per the terms of the Buyer Protection Policy, there is a process that involves filing a claim and there is also a best recovery process)
Doesn't PP apply these funds to the previous debt? Several sellers have posted here that when a charge back was made and their account restricted, PP took the next payments and applied it toward the balance. If the seller decides not to ship because, after all, he isn't getting the money, then who loses it?
( I explained charge backs and pending reversals. The seller is notified of the issue with the payment (the transaction also shows in the in-box). If the recipient follows the details of the SPP, they are covered. If not, the reversal is placed and there is a negative balance on the account)
What PP should do is post very clearly: ALL disputes must go through PP. If you do a charge back with your CC company directly, your account will be restricted. And then they should stick to it. I have seen many posts about sellers hit with false charge backs from buyers. I have never heard that the buyer was ever penalized for this. Some folks charge things back just because they can. (Charge backs, from a sender and recipient perspective, are defined on the web site with the responsibility of both parties and the ramifications of processing one or what happens if you accept a payment that becomes a charge back.Charge backs are a fact of life granted to consumers and accepting credit card payments means accepting that risk)
Sellers who were the recipients of fraudulent funds have been told that PP will not release the scammer's private info. I would think that once it was proven that someone was cheated, they have the right to know who cheated them. (Never happen. Reasons explained. This must go through legal channels. We do pursue, through legal means, users that attempt to defraud our users. This also requires evidence gathering and many other items before we can identify someone as fraud.)
You keep pointing to specific items that you feel are proof of some wrongdoing or another. I can only speak to policy and this is where we keep butting heads.
