posted on December 14, 2000 03:52:59 PM new
I was browsing Paypal's Terms of Use and I stumbled across section II.3.2. If I read this correctly, Paypal reserves the right to seize all the money in your account if you initiate a charge-back. Help me out here, I must be reading this incorrectly (??).
posted on December 14, 2000 04:03:30 PM newtwin....Do NOT adjust your screen...do NOT change channel: you have entered the "TwilightPal"...
I hope for everyone's sake, this is not so! PayPal would be placing the noose around their own neck...How many users would stay on with such TOS...
********************
posted on December 14, 2000 04:03:36 PM new
Yes I believe you are reading this Right wheather you charge back on some one else or if some one charges back on you they do seize all the money This is the same as freezeing.
They hold all funds in the account hostage till the matter is settled.
posted on December 14, 2000 04:31:10 PM new
The terms don't say "freeze the account and hold the funds." The terms say "you may forfeit all funds currently in your account."
posted on December 14, 2000 06:53:42 PM new
Yup, looks like PayPal is reserving the right to confiscate your account balance in the event you initiate a chargeback -- but it doesn't say under what circumstances an actual forfeiture would occur.
Perhaps this is a typically-poorly-worded PayPal attempt to discourage dishonest chargebacks? (Dishonest as in buyer receives item, claims s/he didn't and initiates a chargeback.)
posted on December 15, 2000 05:58:38 AM new...How many users would stay on with such TOS...
How many users have actually blithely signed on (perhaps in response to a You've Got Cash! notice) without reading the TOU? How many bidders have bid on auctions without reading the seller's TOS? And how many of both groups, if they DO read the fine print, actually believe that (a) those terms apply to them and (b) anything would ever occur that would cause those terms to be enforced?
The prevailing wisdom seems to be It's too much trouble to read 'em, they don't apply to me anyway, and even if they did, nothing bad will ever happen. Sigh. This is also the reason scams work. People tend to be overoptimistic in their own favor, particularly when it's to their short-term advantage to turn a blind eye. It's amazing as many folks survive to old age as do.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Dec 15, 2000 05:59 AM ]
posted on December 15, 2000 06:16:44 AM new
Well I for one like the idea. If a buyer hasn't the intelligence to try to work out the problem with me first, and simply initiates a charge back - well, that is their problem.
We have a Merchant's Account, plus we use PayPal, and although we seldom have an unhappy customer, if we do, I want to work out the problem with them personally, there is almost never a need to go to the "charge back," stage, and if more buyers realized that it wasn't considered a "casual" action, they might work harder at trying to settle a difference before they get so dramatic in their actions.
I believe the purpose of this area of the agreement is to put everything on hold till the problem is settled. I see nothing wrong with this. In time things get worked out one way or the other, and the account would then be released.
Some folks seem to work at trying to find problems with PayPal - makes one wonder what they true agenda is.
posted on December 15, 2000 08:52:32 AM newSome folks seem to work at trying to find problems with PayPal - makes one wonder what they true agenda is.
To make it a sevice that truly is safe to use. It may be an effort-in-vain at this stage, but some of us still try.
For some of us who joined PayPal in its early stages, it's sad to watch the turns this service has taken since mid-summer. And I DON'T mean the fees. I pay about the same for my merchant account and I have no complaints with paying it.
PayPal's TOS would raise big red flags for any consumer advocate.
I appreciate twinsoft pointing out this change in PayPal's TOS.
It's the little things like this that are so easily overlooked -- and are most likely to come back to bite you.
This clause now gives PayPal the right to go beyond restricting your account. It allows PayPal to keep your account balance... as in never give it back. But it doesn't spell out the conditions that would cause your funds to be forfeited in event of a chargeback.
posted on December 15, 2000 01:09:52 PM new
I agree with HCQ. This is the kind of clause that I read, and I think, "Oh, they would never do that!" If you read Paypal's TOU, they reserve the right to keep your money in the event of a chargeback, or even if there is "unusual activity." This has got to be the most slanted and dangerous contract I have ever read. And I think it speaks volumes about Paypal that they seem to change their TOU on a daily basis without providing notification to their members.
jwpc, do you wonder about my motives? I'm composing a FAQ, and the section I'm working on is an explanation to my customers about why I no longer accept Paypal. My FAQ will state that Paypal has reduced the amount of protection for buyers. (If buyers are defrauded, Paypal will only reimburse if they are able to collect from the seller, on a first-come, first-served basis.) My FAQ will also state that Paypal's terms now allow them to seize and keep all your money on the vaguest of whims ("unusual activity" ).
This goes beyond personal indignation on my part. I can no longer recommend a service to my customers that allows their account to be cleaned out at that service's discretion. If Paypal would never take all their monies, why is the clause so obvious in Paypal's terms of use?
posted on December 15, 2000 04:10:13 PM newtwinsoft I'm surprised you're surprised.
We've read report after report of PayPal behaving like a business run by a pre-adolescent child. From such a business perspective, you put those kinds of things in the TOU so that when the time comes you can just do them.
