posted on December 11, 2000 07:05:36 PM new
Hi booksbooksbooks,
To be honest, all this conjecturing about how PayPal is trying to blackmail users is a little distrubing.
This is the internet.The internet auction community, sadly, has a fair amount of fraudulent activity.
In order to provide security, identification measures do have to occur to protect all of our users, not just a few. The safer the network is, the more apt people will be to trust the system and use it.
I can't comment on the other case, an item I have mentioned numerous times. It is more complex than appears and valuable pieces of information have been left out.
I have stated numerous times that we do not withdraw money from a user's bank account. This particular instance you are pointing to is one circumstance out of millions of transactions. If there was a clerical error in the past, we did notify users if it was a system glitch that impacted them in any way once we found out about it.If for some reason they weren't notified and it was brought to my attention, I made sure that it was handled.
I went into a fair amount of depth about how transactions are stopped if they are fraudulent before they leave our system.A requests to stop the transfer (before it clears) to a bank in the general 3-5 business day timeframe.
posted on December 11, 2000 07:07:59 PM new
Hi booksbooksbooks,
We are complying with law enforcement on the case. I have mentioned, several times, that there is a reason we simply can't take the money directly out of the account (it would limit the ability to prosecute).
Since this is a legal matter, I can't comment on all the ins and outs of the case. I can assure you that this is done for legal reasons and it is in conjunction with the requests of the legal agency.
The web link I provided earlier is the agency handling it.
posted on December 11, 2000 07:22:43 PM new
Paypaldamon,
I''ve always thought there had to be more to these stories than was being told on these boards. I know you can't come out and say it, but you said enough to enlighten my eyes.
Thanks
posted on December 11, 2000 08:28:03 PM newpaypaldamon, perhaps you could enlighten us on a couple of questions:
1. Why does PP, despite sellers' protests, deny us the choice of accepting or declining a payment, as other services do?
2. Why does PP, despite denying this choice, unilaterally penalize a seller who has the misfortune of being paid by an unscrupulous buyer when, had they been given the choice, the seller might have declined the payment?
3. Why does PP, despite the fact that disputed amounts are often far less than the total funds in a seller's account, freeze the entire account?
4. Why does PP, despite freezing an account, continue to allow payments to flow into that account, placing sellers in the untenuous situation of either shipping the merchandise without having payment or not shipping and placing their reputation at risk?
5. Why does PP, despite the fact that many sellers rely heavily on the cash flow from their PP accounts, investigate chargebacks at a seeming snail's pace with very little communication, placing sellers' businesses and livelihoods in jeopardy?
I could go on, but let's just say I'm not holding my breath for any answers.
[ edited by fountainhouse on Dec 11, 2000 08:29 PM ]
posted on December 12, 2000 12:05:31 AM new
Hi Damon!
I'm all in favor of verification for anyone doing business online.
What you fail to acknowledge, however, is that the requirement that a user authorize Paypal to take money from his bank account has *nothing* to do with establishing that person's identity. That is what makes Paypal's "verification" program so dishonest.
The component of the verification policy that establishes a user's identity is Paypal putting money *in* the account, and the user knowing the amounts. Paypal being authorized to take money *out* has nothing to do with proof of identity, only with proof of the user's gullibility.
The withdrawal authorization component is obviously part of the Paypal business-plan-of-the-week, under which users are pushed (or deceived, if necessary) to use e-Check payments instead of credit cards to fund their payments.
That also explains why all the people who were verified by mail suddenly became un-trustworthy when Paypal decided it wanted access to their bank accounts, and why users become unverified when they remove their bank account info from Paypal, even though their identity has obviously not changed.
Given Paypal's track record of broken promises, I fully expect that, as it continues to lose money, it will change the TOS to allow itself to make bank account withdrawals without authorization.
As for JShumko's case, no one is saying that Paypal is making millions of unauthorized withdrawals. But we do know Paypal did it that once, in spite of the promises that it would *never* happen.
And we also know how Paypal handled the situation when it was reported here -- denial after denial after denial ["we never do this"], rather than immediate acknowledgment that a mistake was made and correction of that mistake ["we did it once, we were wrong, and we fixed it"].
Mistakes happen. If Paypal had responded to JShumko in a manner that suggested that it took its promises seriously, you'd have a lot more crdibility and the responses you get here would be a lot more civil.
If the flak you're getting here bothers you, Damon, I'd suggest that you persuade your employers to let you restrict your role to that of resolving individual complaints, something you seem to do very well, and leave the spinning to someone else. Not that you're bad at spin, it's just that Paypal is no longer spinnable.
Unfortunately, as things stand, you end up suffering for your employer's sins.
[ edited by booksbooksbooks on Dec 12, 2000 03:56 AM ]
posted on December 12, 2000 10:59:30 PM new
Damon
If PayPal will not transfer money out of a banking account without express permission - how do you explain the un-authorised transfer or 'holding' of bank funds for days without even so much as a notification to the bank account owner when a charge card is used on some transactions.
This unauthorised transfer even if it is reversed later, will cause the checking account to bounce checks and rack up charges. This is not equivalent to the holding of credit amounts to guarentee a check or a car rental.
Also, from the reports - reversals are usually only allowed within a day or two due to clerical errors. I hear constant reports of PayPal doing reversals months later. No other money transfer system seems to generate these reports, so your implications of all these customers lying seems more than a bit hard to believe.
As a last comment. You have never explained PayPal's need to have permission to withdraw money that is never used in the verification process and is not needed for the information that you posted PayPal wanted. (this information is available to PayPal for the asking for once they have the account number, they need no permission to withdraw money to deposit the funds as they have been doing).
I noticed that just as I predicted when this verification scheme was started, PayPal has set up the buyers screen for payments in a manner that makes it quite easy for the customer to make a mistake and send bank account payments rather then credit card payments as intended. This makes it quite obvious that the intent of verification is to weasel a 'priming' permission from the PayPal user so that a simple check in a box will allow PayPal to process the far more lucrative checking account transaction. PayPal charges it's sellers almost as much to do a money transfer as it does a credit card transaction. It costs PayPal almost nothing to do a bank account transaction (it's a small flat charge, not a percentage like they charge) and it costs them nothing to do a balance transfer - so $5.00 that someone mentioned earlier to transfer a balance of $2,000 is incredibly expensive.
posted on December 13, 2000 06:26:36 AM new
Several very good questions have been asked on this thread with
no answers
Booksbooksbooks observation that "PayPal is "no longer spinnable"
appears to be the truth!
posted on December 13, 2000 07:50:50 AM newWe will not withdraw funds out of your account without your permission.Verification is an identification tool.
If this is the case, then WHY have the verifying bank accounts been set as the default source of funds for PayPal payments??? I did NOT provide my bank account information for the purpose of funding my PayPal account. However, PayPal has decided to make my "verifying" bank account the default source of funds for my payments, rather than the credit card I chose to use as the source of funds for the account. I challenge their contention that they have my "express permission" to make such a withdrawal, given the fact that I am not specifically asked to choose my bank account as a source of funds when sending money, and the information regarding the source of funding is hidden in a miniscule link on the final page before submission.
In the event of fraud like yisgood mentioned, we will place a hold on the money before it leaves our system.
Few of us would have any argument about "holding" questionable funds. However, the entire account is frozen, without access to see even which customers have made payments.
posted on December 13, 2000 09:23:23 AM new
Hi fountainhouse,
paypaldamon, perhaps you could enlighten us on a couple of questions:
1. Why does PP, despite sellers' protests, deny us the choice of accepting or declining a payment, as other services do? (I will report the desire to product).
2. Why does PP, despite denying this choice, unilaterally penalize a seller who has the misfortune of being paid by an unscrupulous buyer when, had they been given the choice, the seller might have declined the payment? (Only the amount in question is penalized)
3. Why does PP, despite the fact that disputed amounts are often far less than the total funds in a seller's account, freeze the entire account? ( Not all accounts are restricted. We do reverse (freeze) transactions in the majority of cases as long as the recipient is not a fraud account)
4. Why does PP, despite freezing an account, continue to allow payments to flow into that account, placing sellers in the untenuous situation of either shipping the merchandise without having payment or not shipping and placing their reputation at risk? (To allow for dispute resolution.)
5. Why does PP, despite the fact that many sellers rely heavily on the cash flow from their PP accounts, investigate chargebacks at a seeming snail's pace with very little communication, placing sellers' businesses and livelihoods in jeopardy?
(Charge backs can flow in many months after they are reported by the credit card company. Investigatory work has to take place to resolve)
Let's just say I'm not holding my breath for any answers
posted on December 13, 2000 09:31:15 AM new
HI kateartist,
If PayPal will not transfer money out of a banking account without express permission - how do you explain the un-authorised transfer or 'holding' of bank funds for days without even so much as a notification to the bank account owner when a charge card is used on some transactions.(This is not unauthorized. The information is clearly on the web site as far as what kind of transaction is occurring. The funds are secured against the credit card because the ACH from the bank may not authorize)
This unauthorised transfer even if it is reversed later, will cause the checking account to bounce checks and rack up charges. This is not equivalent to the holding of credit amounts to guarentee a check or a car rental. (See above. Instant ACH allows the user to have access to money from their bank account, typically a 5-7 transfer in process, immediately, by securing it against the credit card. Problems occur when users use this feature with their debit card (as their credit card)
As it relates to bank account withdrawals...these are federally regulated items. I have to repeat that we will not access a user's bank account without their permission, which is logging into the web site and requesting said transaction.
The payment type default screen has been changed to reflect credit card at this time.
posted on December 13, 2000 09:39:13 AM new
Original questions by Fountainhouse, answers by Paypaldamon, additional comments by me:
1. Why does PP, despite sellers' protests, deny us the choice of accepting or declining a payment, as other services do?
PPD: (I will report the desire to product).
Me: that's what you said about 4 months ago when we first made this request. Is it taking you 4 months to report it or is it taking PP 4 months to listen? Or have they decided they won't implement this because accepting funds against a seller's wishes is a great way to rack up those fees?
2. Why does PP, despite denying this choice, unilaterally penalize a seller who has the misfortune of being paid by an unscrupulous buyer when, had they been given the choice, the seller might have declined the payment? PPDOnly the amount in question is
penalized)
Me: We have heard this lie over and over. Entire accounts are still being frozen over one charge back.
3. Why does PP, despite the fact that disputed amounts are often far less than the total funds in a seller's account, freeze the entire account?
PPD: ( Not all accounts are restricted. We do reverse (freeze) transactions in the majority of cases as long as the recipient is not a fraud account)
Me: Well, either you consider an account that gets one charge back in dozens of transactions a fraud, which would make Paypal a fraud by your definition, or you consider 1 in 100 a majority. But we have all read the dictionary of Paypalspeak, haven't we?
4. Why does PP, despite freezing an account, continue to allow payments to flow into that account, placing sellers in the untenuous situation of either shipping the merchandise without having payment or not shipping and placing their reputation at risk?
PPD: (To allow for dispute resolution.)
Me: How does allowing more innocent folks pay and get their money tied up where they can't get it back and the seller can't refund, a method of dispute resolution? It sounds more like dispute encouragement. What happens when all those folks start charging back? Now the seller doesn't have just one angry customer, he's got dozens. Or maybe that's how you decide that the entire account is under fraud suspicions which retroactively justifies your decision to freeze it. Since you claim that you only freeze accounts with suspicion of fraud, why do you allow more folks to send it money? I would think you would want to protect your customers. None of your answers or Paypal's actions make logical sense.
5. Why does PP, despite the fact that many sellers rely heavily on the cash flow from their PP accounts, investigate chargebacks at a seeming snail's pace with very little communication, placing sellers' businesses and livelihoods in jeopardy?
PPD: (Charge backs can flow in many months after they are reported by the credit card company. Investigatory work has to take place to resolve)
Me: How long it takes a charge back to come in has nothing to do with how long it takes to resolve. I got a charge back from one of my customers 4 months later claiming unauthorized use of the CC. I sent my bank a copy of the proof of delivery, showing that it went to the cardholder's address and the CB was denied. The whole process took about two weeks, not several months like with PP. What's the real reason PP freezes accounts for months? Is it to give them a free loan of working capital? And by the way, my merchant bank did NOT freeze my account during this period. They didnt even take back the disputed amount.
posted on December 13, 2000 09:50:47 AM new
Hi Yisgood,
http://www.auctionwatch.com/mesg/read.html?num=2&thread=298914
posted by: yisgood
Original questions by Fountainhouse, answers by Paypaldamon, additional comments by me:
1. Why does PP, despite sellers' protests, deny us the choice of accepting or declining a payment, as other services do?
PPD: (I will report the desire to product).
Me: that's what you said about 4 months ago when we first made this request. Is it taking you 4 months to report it or is it taking PP 4 months to listen? Or have they decided they won't implement this because accepting funds against a seller's wishes is a great way to rack up those fees? (No, I have reported in the past. Feature requests go into Product and they are spec'd out. As a reminder, I can only report, but I can't force implementation of a product request)
2. Why does PP, despite denying this choice, unilaterally penalize a seller who has the misfortune of being paid by an unscrupulous buyer when, had they been given the choice, the seller might have declined the payment? PPDOnly the amount in question is
penalized)
Me: We have heard this lie over and over. Entire accounts are still being frozen over one charge back. (The problem of frozen accounts for one transaction is rare, if it even occurs at all at this point)
3. Why does PP, despite the fact that disputed amounts are often far less than the total funds in a seller's account, freeze the entire account?
PPD: ( Not all accounts are restricted. We do reverse (freeze) transactions in the majority of cases as long as the recipient is not a fraud account)
Me: Well, either you consider an account that gets one charge back in dozens of transactions a fraud, which would make Paypal a fraud by your definition, or you consider 1 in 100 a majority. But we have all read the dictionary of Paypalspeak, haven't we?
(No, an account that receives one transaction charged back is not considered a fraud)
4. Why does PP, despite freezing an account, continue to allow payments to flow into that account, placing sellers in the untenuous situation of either shipping the merchandise without having payment or not shipping and placing their reputation at risk?
PPD: (To allow for dispute resolution.)
Me: How does allowing more innocent folks pay and get their money tied up where they can't get it back and the seller can't refund, a method of dispute resolution? It sounds more like dispute encouragement. What happens when all those folks start charging back? Now the seller doesn't have just one angry customer, he's got dozens. Or maybe that's how you decide that the entire account is under fraud suspicions which retroactively justifies your decision to freeze it. Since you claim that you only freeze accounts with suspicion of fraud, why do you allow more folks to send it money? I would think you would want to protect your customers. None of your answers or Paypal's actions make logical sense.
5. Why does PP, despite the fact that many sellers rely heavily on the cash flow from their PP accounts, investigate chargebacks at a seeming snail's pace with very little communication, placing sellers' businesses and livelihoods in jeopardy?
PPD: (Charge backs can flow in many months after they are reported by the credit card company. Investigatory work has to take place to resolve)
Me: How long it takes a charge back to come in has nothing to do with how long it takes to resolve. I got a charge back from one of my customers 4 months later claiming unauthorized use of the CC. I sent my bank a copy of the proof of delivery, showing that it went to the cardholder's address and the CB was denied. The whole process took about two weeks, not several months like with PP. What's the real reason PP freezes accounts for months? Is it to give them a free loan of working capital? And by the way, my merchant bank did NOT freeze my account during this period. They didnt even take back the disputed amount.
(Accounts are not restricted unless there is a true issue. Our charge back process involves getting the report from the credit card company and investigating the claim.)
posted on December 13, 2000 10:25:00 AM new
Original questions by Fountainhouse, answers by Paypaldamon, additional comments by me:
1. Why does PP, despite sellers' protests, deny us the choice of accepting or declining a payment, as other services do?
PPD: (I will report the desire to product).
Me: that's what you said about 4 months ago when we first made this request. Is it taking you 4 months to report it or is it taking PP 4 months to listen? Or have they decided they won't implement this because accepting funds against a seller's wishes is a great way to rack up those fees?
PPD: (No, I have reported in the past. Feature requests go into Product and they are spec'd out. As a reminder, I can only report, but I can't force implementation of a product request)
Me: So in other words, they're not listening. So why don't you just say that? Instead of saying you'll bring it up, as if it hasn't already been brought up, just say "Paypal is not listenting to you. Paypal will not give you an accept/reject method. Paypal likes it that you are forced to accept fraudulent payments, pay them fees on it and then have your account frozen."
2. Why does PP, despite denying this choice, unilaterally penalize a seller who has the misfortune of being paid by an unscrupulous buyer when, had they been given the choice, the seller might have declined the payment? PPDOnly the amount in question is
penalized)
Me: We have heard this lie over and over. Entire accounts are still being frozen over one charge back.
PPD: (The problem of frozen accounts for one transaction is rare, if it even occurs at all at this point)
Me: Define "at this point" in Paypalspeak. Since yesterday? 5 minutes ago? The boards are still filled with sellers whose PP accounts were frozen over one charge back. I am still getting emails from them. I am still waiting to hear from someone who only had one transaction frozen and was given an opportunity to respond.
3. Why does PP, despite the fact that disputed amounts are often far less than the total funds in a seller's account, freeze the entire account?
PPD: ( Not all accounts are restricted. We do reverse (freeze) transactions in the majority of cases as long as the recipient is not a fraud account)
Me: Well, either you consider an account that gets one charge back in dozens of transactions a fraud, which would make Paypal a fraud by your definition, or you consider 1 in 100 a majority. But we have all read the dictionary of Paypalspeak, haven't we?
PPD: (No, an account that receives one transaction charged back is not considered a fraud)
Me: so the question remains, so why do you freeze it? Then we go back to "no, we don't" "yes, you do"
4. Why does PP, despite freezing an account, continue to allow payments to flow into that account, placing sellers in the untenuous situation of either shipping the merchandise without having payment or not shipping and placing their reputation at risk?
PPD: (To allow for dispute resolution.)
Me: How does allowing more innocent folks pay and get their money tied up where they can't get it back and the seller can't refund, a method of dispute resolution? It sounds more like dispute encouragement. What happens when all those folks start charging back? Now the seller doesn't have just one angry customer, he's got dozens. Or maybe that's how you decide that the entire account is under fraud suspicions which retroactively justifies your decision to freeze it. Since you claim that you only freeze accounts with suspicion of fraud, why do you allow more folks to send it money? I would think you would want to protect your customers. None of your answers or Paypal's actions make logical sense.
Me: I notice that you didnt answer this one at all. Now that you claim you only freeze actual fraudulent accounts, you can't answer why you still let payments go into them. Run out of ways to spin this one?
5. Why does PP, despite the fact that many sellers rely heavily on the cash flow from their PP accounts, investigate chargebacks at a seeming snail's pace with very little communication, placing sellers' businesses and livelihoods in jeopardy?
PPD: (Charge backs can flow in many months after they are reported by the credit card company. Investigatory work has to take place to resolve)
Me: How long it takes a charge back to come in has nothing to do with how long it takes to resolve. I got a charge back from one of my customers 4 months later claiming unauthorized use of the CC. I sent my bank a copy of the proof of delivery, showing that it went to the cardholder's address and the CB was denied. The whole process took about two weeks, not several months like with PP. What's the real reason PP freezes accounts for months? Is it to give them a free loan of working capital? And by the way, my merchant bank did NOT freeze my account during this period. They didnt even take back the disputed amount.
(Accounts are not restricted unless there is a true issue. Our charge back process involves getting the report from the credit card company and investigating the claim.)
Me: Let's review. The CC company sends you a report of the charge back. You are supposed to contact the seller and ask for proof of delivery and then forward this to the CC company. This takes about 2 weeks. The CC company usually does not charge it back until some time has passed. Maybe because of the high rate of PP charge backs, they aren't waiting. Maybe because PP is so flooded with CB, they can't be bothered to contact the seller and it's just easier to freeze the account. Back to "no, we don't" "yes, you do" PP is the only one telling the truth and the hundreds of people posting horror stories, some of them ebay power sellers with hundreds of positive feedbacks, are all lying. If you believe that, I have some oceanfront property for sale in Arizona. Real cheap. Just don't pay me with Paypal.
posted on December 13, 2000 12:22:43 PM new
I wish you would skip lines between he said/she said so your posts are more readable.
Kate: If PayPal will not transfer money out of a banking account without express permission - how do you explain the un-authorised transfer or 'holding' of bank funds for days without even so much as a notification to the bank account owner when a charge card is used on some transactions.
DamonThis is not unauthorized. The information is clearly on the web site as far as what kind of transaction is occurring. The funds are secured against the credit card because the ACH from the bank may not authorize)
Kate: Just identifying the transaction does not clearly inform the consumer that they will be tying up funds in their checking account. Under ACH rules, you are required to do this. Under your own agreements, evidently you aren't bothering.
Kate: This unauthorised transfer even if it is reversed later, will cause the checking account to bounce checks and rack up charges. This is not equivalent to the holding of credit amounts to guarentee a check or a car rental.
DamonSee above. Instant ACH allows the user to have access to money from their bank account, typically a 5-7 transfer in process, immediately, by securing it against the credit card. Problems occur when users use this feature with their debit card (as their credit card)
Kate: You can't expect consumers to know that PayPal can't tell the difference between a debit card and a credit card. This is not the consumer's fault - this is PayPal's fault. 5-7 transfer is exactly what?
Damon: As it relates to bank account withdrawals...these are federally regulated items. I have to repeat that we will not access a user's bank account without their permission, which is logging into the web site and requesting said transaction.
Kate: Consumer lack of sophistication is being taken advantage of. PayPal and you keep repeating this, but the truth is, this happens constantly, because the consumer is rarely aware of what they are agreeing to with new terms and credit jargon.
Damon: The payment type default screen has been changed to reflect credit card at this time.
Kate: From bank account to credit card now? Can anyone else verify this?
posted on December 13, 2000 01:13:57 PM new
Hi fountainhouse,
posted by: fountainhouse
My synopsis of PPdamon's answers:
1. Why doesn't PP let sellers decline a payment?
A. What? And lose all those transaction fees?!
(As I reported, this information has been passed along to the decision makers and policy makers)
2. [i] Why does PP penalize sellers when they might have declined a fraudulent payment?
A. We gotta cover our a$$es somehow, don't we?
(See above.)
3. Why does PP freeze the whole account for a even a small chargeback?
A. Hey, c'mon, we don't freeze everybody's account. Sometimes we just withdraw the money out of their checking account.(No, we do not restrict every account that has been a recipient of fraud funds.)
4. Why does PP continue to post payments to an account that's been frozen?
A. See answer 1 above.
(Sellers complained when they weren't able to receive payments into their account when it was restricted. They were worried about their image (a message would flash stating that the account has an issue, which led to issues. This was changed to meet user demand)
5. Why does PP take so long to investigate chargebacks, with very little communication with the seller?
A. Because we can!
(No. Charge backs trickle in at various times and there is discussion between the company and the issuing credit card company. Charge backs are ultimately at the discretion of the issuing company. Investigatory work takes place to give whatever information is needed).
posted on December 13, 2000 01:20:35 PM new
Hi Kateartist,
I wish you would skip lines between he said/she said so your posts are more readable.
Kate: If PayPal will not transfer money out of a banking account without express permission - how do you explain the un-authorised transfer or 'holding' of bank funds for days without even so much as a notification to the bank account owner when a charge card is used on some transactions.
Damon-(the web site states what the ach transfer time is before funds clear in or out of the account. How is this unauthorized if the user makes the request and agreed to the terms of use For the instant ach feature, an email went to the user thanking them for using the feature)
DamonThis is not unauthorized. The information is clearly on the web site as far as what kind of transaction is occurring. The funds are secured against the credit card because the ACH from the bank may not authorize)
Kate: Just identifying the transaction does not clearly inform the consumer that they will be tying up funds in their checking account. Under ACH rules, you are required to do this. Under your own agreements, evidently you aren't bothering.
(See above)
Kate: This unauthorised transfer even if it is reversed later, will cause the checking account to bounce checks and rack up charges. This is not equivalent to the holding of credit amounts to guarentee a check or a car rental.
Damon-(transaction requests are done by users logging into the site.)
DamonSee above. Instant ACH allows the user to have access to money from their bank account, typically a 5-7 transfer in process, immediately, by securing it against the credit card. Problems occur when users use this feature with their debit card (as their credit card)
Kate: You can't expect consumers to know that PayPal can't tell the difference between a debit card and a credit card. This is not the consumer's fault - this is PayPal's fault. 5-7 transfer is exactly what?
Damon-(Sorry, I meant 5-7 business days. There is no distinction between a debit card with the Visa/MC logo as far as processing.It is why I posted what happens when instant ach is used on the boards)
Damon: As it relates to bank account withdrawals...these are federally regulated items. I have to repeat that we will not access a user's bank account without their permission, which is logging into the web site and requesting said transaction.
Kate: Consumer lack of sophistication is being taken advantage of. PayPal and you keep repeating this, but the truth is, this happens constantly, because the consumer is rarely aware of what they are agreeing to with new terms and credit jargon.
(No,This is a federally regulated item that has nothing to do with changing policy or terms. All bank account access is done by consumer consent (logging into the web site and requesting a transaction)If a consumer does not log in to their account and request it, nothing will happen)
posted on December 13, 2000 01:38:27 PM newSellers complained when they weren't able to receive payments into their account when it was restricted. They were worried about their image (a message would flash stating that the account has an issue, which led to issues. This was changed to meet user demand
Let's get this straight. You're asserting that PP's only choices are 1) to flash a message to customers that a seller's account has been frozen for suspected fraudulent activity; or 2) just let the payments roll in.
I'm stupefied by the things PP expects people to believe.
posted on December 13, 2000 01:46:27 PM new
First Damon claims that the only time an account is frozen is when fraud is suspected. Why freeze the account? To protect PP from the cost of the fraud. But then allow a bunch of unsuspecting users to continue paying into that account. Don't give an accept/reject button, which would allow the seller to reject payments or the senders to cancel them until accepted. Let the money flow into the black hole of a restricted account where no one but Paypal can take it. And they claim they do this for the "protection of the seller." Several sellers have already posted here and emailed me how PP froze their accounts for months, accepted thousands of dollars into it and totally destroyed the seller's reputation because they could not sell, nor could they refund. Is this "protection" worth paying for? Is this worth it even for free? Pals like this I recommend to the competitors I don't like.
posted on December 13, 2000 01:59:00 PM newDamon: The payment type default screen has been changed to reflect credit card at this time.
Kate: From bank account to credit card now? Can anyone else verify this?
I just went in and checked this out. My source of funds is still defaulting to my checking account. It IS a bit more clearly spelled out, as the subtotals from each source are shown on the verification page, but the font size is still pretty small, and it's at the bottom of the verification page. I'd really prefer to be ASKED to expressly choose for each transaction, unless the default is really going to be set back to credit cards.
posted on December 13, 2000 06:00:15 PM new
Just tried to send a payment through PP. It defaults to instant bank account, which means they charge your bank account AND your credit card and credit your credit card about 5 days later. I doubt this is the default most folks would pick. In small print at the bottom it says 'more payment options' and that is what you click to choose something else. Why couldnt there be a choice right at the start? Well, we all know why.
Only the amount in question is