posted on May 27, 2000 10:08:39 AM new
As near as one can tell from reading a few threads, if:
1. a buyer pays for something using a credit card
2. the seller turns out to be a scammer who never sends anything
3. the buyer disputes the credit card charge
then
1. Paypal locks buyer's account
2. If possible, PayPal tries to collect the money back from buyer using other money in buyer's account or even by deducting the money from buyer's bank account.
In other words, PayPal becomes the agent of the scammer in trying to make sure that buyer remains stuck.
Now,
This seems crazy enough that it seems necessary to seek confirmation.
posted on May 28, 2000 12:22:54 AM new
You are confused. A buyer doesn't pay for "something" using his credit card. A buyer uses his credit card to add funds to his PayPal account. PayPal doesn't sell items to buyers. If an eBay seller rips you off, do you ask eBay for a refund? EBay doesn't sell items to buyers.
posted on May 28, 2000 06:31:31 AM new
sg52, you don't understand what paypal is. It is simply an intermediary passing funds from the buyer to the seller. It is as though the buyer handed cash to the seller. From PPs FAQ:
Q: Can I make a return and/or get a refund from the seller? ANSWER: Any returns should be handled between yourself and the seller. If the seller agrees to refund the money, the seller can simply send the money back to you by using PayPal.com.
Q: Can I cancel a payment? ANSWER: PayPal payments are sent instantly to other PayPal users. When you send money to someone who is not already a user you may cancel the payment until the recipient signs up for PayPal and claims the money.
Any buyer using PP had better check the sellers FB first.
posted on May 28, 2000 10:03:17 AM newyou don't understand what paypal is.
If they charge my credit card, I know who they are: the one who charged my card.
And all the FAQ's in the world don't change that a bit...and PayPal doesn't set the rules regarding charging credit cards.
They can of course try to intimidate buyer such that buyer will not dispute the charge, and they can of course try to stick buyer as described....but I'll predict that that's not a valid business model.
There are mail order camera stores who advertise in places like Shutterbug magazine, advertising prices below wholesale. One of the variations of their scam is to just charge the card, maybe shipping something different, maybe not shipping anything at all. Then they try to intimidate buyer such that buyer will not dispute the charge, while negotiating some result which is profitable to the seller.
Those whose business model includes intimidation deserve a bit of their own medicine.
Bottom line: paying for something with a credit card provides protection from non-delivery of that item. No one should be coerced to give up that right.
posted on May 28, 2000 10:20:59 AM new
Is sg52 confused? Playing dumb?
sg52 is a long time credit card mail order merchant, who is watching the PayPal story with great interest. sg52 not lacking in understanding of what PayPal would like to do, but he's cynical that standing the usual mail order world on its head is the right answer; thus, he points out the downside.
If anything, sg52 would like PayPal to step right up and just say "yup, scammed buyers are stuck, and we do our best to make sure they stay stuck, because the alternative is that PayPal might be stuck. Think bad of us if you like, but that's what we are."
Then we can test the case. While there remains some doubt, some buyers might just assume that nothing could be that bad.
posted on May 28, 2000 11:16:02 AM new
SG52 - you make a good argument, but I don't think it is correct.
"There are mail order camera stores who advertise in places like Shutterbug magazine, advertising prices below wholesale. One of the variations of their scam is to just charge the card, maybe shipping something different, maybe not shipping anything at all. Then they try to intimidate buyer such that buyer will not dispute the charge, while negotiating some result which is profitable to the seller."
That is not a good analogy since PP is not selling you a product. They ARE selling you a service, namely the transfer of funds from the buyer to the seller. Once they perform this service, what the seller does (eg non-delivery of a product) is really irrelevant vis a vis PP. The buyer's beef is with the seller, not with PP.
posted on May 28, 2000 01:17:19 PM newThe buyer's beef is with the seller, not with PP.
If buyer has a charge on the credit card, and nothing comes, buyer has a legitimate reason to dispute the charge.
It's up to whomever charged the card to sort it out from there.
Any alternative would strip buyer of the protection offered to credit card users by law.
=====
Yes, I know what PayPal says, and I'm not pretending not to hear. I'll even grant that they have the legal right to "lock up the account" of someone who exercises their rights under credit card law.
I'll point out that there was a time when a mail order merchant had the legal right to charge the card and the customer just had to pay, while the merchant shipped when he got good and ready, or not.
posted on May 28, 2000 05:32:55 PM new
"No, but if I've had the foresight to pay with my credit card, I ask my credit card company to give me a refund."
sg52,
Lets say you've used your credit card to purchase a money order through BidPay. Lets say the item you ordered isn't want you wanted or doesn't meet some requirement. Do you feel you have the right to dispute the charge? You used your credit card to purchase a money order with BidPay and the services were rendered. How do you view PayPal any different?
posted on May 28, 2000 06:39:43 PM new. Lets say the item you ordered isn't want you wanted or doesn't meet some requirement.
uaru I think this confuses the issue. The discussion isn't over my potential disappointment, which is not covered by credit card agreements.
Rather, it involves a charge for which I received nothing, and I think we can consider your question in that light.
If I buy a MO on my credit card, I have received a MO, that's what I bought. Or cash for that matter.
PayPal allows sellers to claim to accept credit card payments, it's the essence of what they're offering, although they'd like to change that I'm sure, for more reasons than just this one.
If seller says "I can take credit cards through PayPal", and I pay seller with my credit card using PayPal and nothing comes, then nothing came, and I received nothing for the charge on my credit card. And by credit card rules, I'm entitled to a refund from my credit card company.
posted on May 28, 2000 07:49:24 PM new
"If seller says "I can take credit cards through PayPal", and I pay seller with my credit card using PayPal and nothing comes, then nothing came, and I received nothing for the charge on my credit card. And by credit card rules, I'm entitled to a refund from my credit card company. "
Okay, let me try it again. If you purchase a money order through BidPay for an item and it never comes do you feel you should be able to dispute the charges with BidPay?
PayPal has tried to explain (unsuccessfully to some) that they are basically purchasing an electronic check.
In your case sg52 I think it would be unwise to use PayPal, or maybe I shouldn't use them. One of us definitely has a misunderstanding of how the system works.
posted on May 28, 2000 09:02:44 PM newPayPal has tried to explain (unsuccessfully to some) that they are basically purchasing an electronic check.
It's not that some of us are being dense, uaru.
Rather, we reject such analysis, asserting that PayPal operates under a set of rules which haven't changed.
It would be too easy. Imagine a scamming merchant who says to buyer "you didn't buy a $1000 sofa, what you bought was an electronic check which we used to order your sofa with. Sorry it didn't work out, but we did just what you asked us to do. See here where you agreed to that in writing?"
That doesn't work in the real world because buyer's credit card company gives the money right back; buyer's credit card bank collects it from seller's bank; seller's bank takes it back from seller on the spot, or, if seller has scammed them too, seller's bank loses.
To repeat, buyer's credit card company gives the money back if nothing was received for the charge. Nothing else matters, not what buyer signed, not what the person who charged the card claims buyer really bought, nothing.
posted on May 28, 2000 09:39:46 PM newpaypal is saying you give up any right you have with a credit card company to dispute a charge.
In fairness to PayPal, that's essentially what I derived from a few reports on this forum; it may be mistaken, and we should allow PayPal to speak for themselves, after the holiday.
posted on May 28, 2000 10:12:52 PM new
"Rather, we reject such analysis, asserting that PayPal operates under a set of rules which haven't changed"
Whether you reject such analysis or not the rules aren't the same as if you gave a merchant your credit card for some item. PayPal is a 3rd party in the transaction. You are using PayPal as a medium for the transaction, you didn't purchase the wiget from them you purchased it from a seller on ebay. PayPal is not an excrow service, I'm not sure how many times that's been said. You can argue as long as you like that you FEEL they are, our they SHOULD be, or the OUGHT to be. No matter how much it bothers you PAYPAL IS NOT AN EXCROW SERVICE.
repeat after me, PAYPAL IS NOT AN ESCROW SERVICE.
Once you accept or rather understand that fact there is no argument.
posted on May 28, 2000 11:19:34 PM newPAYPAL IS NOT AN ESCROW SERVICE.
Eh?
Ok. They're not an escrow service. No one claimed they were, not that I noticed anyway.
They're the one who charged the card, and thus they operate under the rules for charging cards. One of those rules is, when nothing comes except the charge on the card, buyer doesn't have to pay the charge.
PayPal, like anyone charging cards, knows that.
The essential discussion is whether PayPal has a valid business model in coercing its buyers to voluntarily forgo asserting their rights under such a rule, presuming for a moment that they indeed do so.
posted on May 29, 2000 12:51:57 AM new
"sg52 is a long time credit card mail order merchant"
Enough said. Before PayPal arrived, sellers with merchant accounts enjoyed an advantage over the majority of online sellers who didn't accept credit cards. Sg52 is upset because PayPal levels the playing field.
posted on May 29, 2000 03:58:09 AM new You know I should know better than this, but what the hell, I'll give it one more try.
sg52 if you use your credit card with PayPal to pay for an auction item do you feel they are responsible for the seller to send you the item, for the item perform as you expected, for the item to be in the condition you expected?
IF you answered yes that means you feel they should operate as escrow service. PAYPAL IS NOT AN ESCROW SERVICE (deja vu)
You've have much better arguments against PayPal in the past, they weren't good, but they were better.
posted on May 29, 2000 07:32:58 AM new
"I submit $100.00 to paypal for an auction. I never receive the item.
How do I go about getting my $100.00 back at this point?"
Good question, let me answer your question with a question. How do you get your $100.00 back if you paid by personal check that the seller has held till it clears? How do you get $100.00 back if you pay by a USPS Money Order, and the buyer sends you nothing in return?
As far as having someone investigate the fraud, that's not a problem. The FBI has a division that takes care of Internet Fraud. I doesn't take much effort to file a complain at their Internet Fraud Complaint Center. https://www.ifccfbi.gov/
Since PayPal doesn't place a bag of cash in a dark alleyway to be picked up by the seller, they have to be transferred to a bank or a check mailed to an address I'd rather try a different method of scamming money myself.
Money Order, Cashier's Check, Personal Check, PayPal, electronic check, with any of these methods if you pay and the goods never come you have the same legal rights.
posted on May 29, 2000 07:51:51 AM new
I've never lost any money due to fraud with personal check, money order, or electronic payment, so I can't speak from experience. I know I'd report the matter to the authorities, but as far as getting my money back I can't tell you what the process would be.
posted on May 29, 2000 08:05:14 AM new
I personally have no problem with paypal.
However, I am not prepared to say they are the greatest invention since toliet paper.
i am waiting to see what they are going to call a "business" for when they launch their business division in Jume, and have charges and fees for it.
I do believe in the saying "If something appears to be too good to be true, it usually is"
posted on May 29, 2000 10:49:35 AM new
>Sg52 is upset because PayPal levels the playing field.
I'm not particularly upset, it's not much of an advantage on eBay to take credit cards directly (excepting maybe sellers outside of the US/Canada). My credit card business is web based, not eBay based. On eBay I'm in the same boat as y'all, I don't take a credit card except in some really corner cases. For one thing, it ends up being charged to a business no one has ever heard of, an invitation for buyer to forget what that charge was all about.
PayPal seems to be trying to redefine the mail order credit card business model, supplying instead a business model devoid of any protection for buyer. That's fine.
But let's shine a few bright lights on what is going on.
posted on May 29, 2000 12:08:13 PM newIf seller says "I can take credit cards through PayPal", and I pay seller with my credit card using PayPal and nothing comes, then nothing came, and I received nothing for the charge on my credit card. And by credit card rules, I'm entitled to a refund from my credit card company.
I think sg52 has a really good point here. Regardless of what they claim in their Terms of Use, PayPal advertises itself as a service allowing auction buyers to pay with credit cards.
When push comes to shove, that's exactly what PayPal offers, and if a person doesn't receive the item they paid for using their credit card, their credit card company will reverse the charge. As PayPal's own reps and FAQs say, they will then pursue means of collecting those funds and/or lock out the user. Since the ability to reverse the charge on a fraudulent credit card purchase is a right protected by federal legislation, the ultimate question of the validity of PayPal's attempts to recover the charged back funds will only be answered if and when a dispute goes through the courts.
But, to answer the question posed in the title of this thread: Yes, I think PayPal does "stick it" to scammed buyers.
posted on May 29, 2000 09:40:43 PM new
On the "Auction Payment" section of the Paypal web site, it says: "Auction Buyers - Pay with Visa or Mastercard." Sounds to me like I am making an auction payment with my credit card. Note that it doesn't say "Pay with Paypal funds which you can purchase with Visa or Mastercard."
At best, its misleading. If they want to claim that you are puchasing some kind of electronic money order, that's fine. But they should make that fact clear to the users. It seems that they are attempting to do just the opposite.
posted on May 30, 2000 03:53:23 AM new
I think some are losing sight of the fact that most people are using PayPal as an alternative to purchasing a Money Order or a Cashier's check.
I guess if you are uncomfortable with the terms of PayPal running down to the local grocery or post office is an acceptable alternative. Myself I find the convenience of PayPal over the money order a big advantage.
posted on May 30, 2000 06:25:11 PM newI think some are losing sight of the fact that most people are using PayPal as an alternative to purchasing a Money Order or a Cashier's check.
I think some are losing sight of the fact that PayPal is charging people's credit cards.
posted on May 30, 2000 06:48:32 PM new
"I think some are losing sight of the fact that PayPal is charging people's credit cards. "
The next time you have the option of sending a Money Order, Cashier's Check, or PayPal Payment, simply march down to the post office or bankpurchase a Money Order or Cashier's Check, purchase a stamp, put the Money Order or Cashier's check in the envelope, put the stamp on the envelope, and go to the mailbox... there... now you've paid and you didn't have to mess with nasty old PayPal.
Unfortunately I'm a bit lazy, and if I can accomplish the same thing with a few keystrokes for free I'm going to do so. I don't see the advantage of paying with a money order or cashier's check over PayPal.
BTW, PayPal has never charged my credit card, but I do have one on file with them.
posted on May 30, 2000 06:58:03 PM new
It is really interesting how some posters are really die-hard paypal fans and stick up for the company. And the amount of posters that try to convert the non-users.
You have to wonder why. Why should it matter if someone doesn't like or trust paypal. If I chose to sign up or I distrust it?
It should be the other way around. The more people you convince to use paypal (sellers) the more competition you have.
You know I should know better than this, but what the hell, I'll give it one more try.