posted on December 18, 2000 08:29:24 AM
8. Receipt of Payments; Risk of Reversal of Transactions; Collection of Funds you owe PayPal. When you receive a payment through the Service, unless you follow the steps necessary to qualify for our Seller Protection Policy described in Part IV of this User Agreement, you are not protected against a subsequent reversal of the transaction. In the event that the sender’s transaction is reversed for any reason and you do not qualify for the Seller Protection Policy for that transaction, you will owe PayPal for the amount of the reversed transaction plus any fees imposed on PayPal as a result of the reversal. Examples of such a reversal include, but are not limited to, a credit card charge-back by the sender of the payment, and a reversal of the transaction because the sender of the payment was using a stolen credit card or unauthorized bank account. PayPal will seek to recover the funds from you by debiting your PayPal balance and, if there are not sufficient funds in your PayPal balance, PayPal reserves the right to collect your debt to PayPal by any other legal means. You authorize PayPal to charge your credit card or debit card in the amount of any debt to PayPal. You authorize PayPal to obtain a credit report on you in the event that you incur a debt to PayPal.
well I guess after they all those promises about "explicit permission", they couldn't say take it out of your bank account.
posted on December 18, 2000 08:50:48 AM
where is damon with his drival?
"we will never ever ever ever ever take money from you acct's with your express approval blah blah blah blah.
posted on December 18, 2000 02:34:27 PM
This is why they wanted verification for bank accounts....but since after the roasting at AW and other places about PayPal's real intentions about gaining access to bank accounts, they couldn't put in the TOS "You authorize Paypal to withdraw from bank account", rather just "You authorize Paypal to charge your credit card"
I asked Damon about this before and he never replied...
posted on December 18, 2000 02:44:13 PM
Yup, that is relatively new. I brought that up here on the 6th. And, by continuing to use the service, you are agreeing to the terms of service, including the updates. I'm glad I closed my account BEFORE that change came along!!!
posted on December 18, 2000 02:46:41 PM
If you read the posted section carefully, the collection means discussed are in reference to accounts which don't qualify for the Seller Protection plan, i.e. the user never gave PayPal their bank account info. Users who have verified with PayPal won't have their bank accounts debited for that purpose, unless the transaction in question violated the terms of the agreement.
However, PP is making pretty free with debiting the verifying accounts for any other reason they can come up with. I rechecked my account yesterday, and despite Damon's claims, it still defaults to the verifying bank account for payment of amounts over my PayPal balance.
posted on December 18, 2000 03:08:02 PM
it's not just for someone who does not verify, it's for anyone who doesn't follow all the instructions for seller protection, like not shipping to a verified address, etc...but the address isn't always included in tye payment!!! Or if the buyer wins a chargeback. the sellers protection bs doesn't say that sellers are protected, whether or not the seller is verified.
And if they can say they will charge a credit card..well you can draw your own conclusions.
posted on December 18, 2000 03:28:11 PM
Paypal won't go into your bank account unless you're verified, because they can't. The whole process of "verification" isn't for security, it's for allowing Paypal access to your bank account. Sign on with Yahoo and you'll see the exact same procedure, except Yahoo is up-front about it and explains that you must be verified so Yahoo can take money from your bank account and put it in your online "wallet."
If Paypal tries to scam your credit card you can just charge it back. If they take money from your bank account, they can claim you gave permission via the "verification." The only one they're protecting is Paypal.
posted on December 18, 2000 06:30:22 PM
*A BRIGHT NOTE*
I have not had ANY problems whatsoever with paypal, but decided with the experiences here of so many that did, that I would go to my bank with a "notorized" statement that X.Com or PayPal is not permitted under any circumstances to remove even one cent from my account, and that any debit card charges by them if not prevented, would be challenged and demand for reversal would be imminant.
GUESS WHAT?
They told me that they will not permit PayPal to make a withdrawel from ANY account, and that the banking industry is looking to "BAN" the practices by PayPal, due to the amount of complaints they are recieving about unauthorized debits.
The banking industry is apparently fed up with the actions of PayPal, and is on the verge, or at least in discussions, of stopping them.
They are pushing for if you WANT to allow them to take payments out, that you would have to go into your bank and sign an authorization form allowing such.
Remember now, I LIKE PayPal, and this is just what my banker told me.
Paypal better do something on their own, before they get screwed big time, because the banking industry DOES have stroke.
posted on December 19, 2000 09:42:23 AM
I would agree with that, and I think that PP would lose in court, if someone chose to file suit over one of their withdrawals. When a PayPal account is set up to pay by credit card and the user provided bank information for purposes of identity verification (at the urging of PayPal) and making electronic transfers INTO that bank account, I doubt they have a legal leg to stand on in claiming that they have "express permission" to debit that bank account, simply because the user signed into the site. PayPal chose to set the bank account as the default source of funds, and does not do an adequate job (IMHO) of notifying the user of that choice. I believe that they would have to give the user the option to choose the setting for the default source of funds or choose the source of funds in each transaction, in order to prove "express permission" to debit the bank accout. In my problem transaction, they did NOT have my permission to debit my bank account, because I was not aware that this is what was happening. Can you give "express permission" for an action of which you are not aware?
posted on December 25, 2000 08:18:36 AM
My point is that this new set of TOS is contrary to everything Paypaldamon has said before about explicit permission. The only reason bank account is not in that set of jargon is because of the AW users' reaction (and possibly other places, I don't know)
posted on December 25, 2000 10:15:31 AM
Slightly off topic but in the same vein:
International Customers of Paypal had the money from Paypal accounts withdrawn to a credit card, but it appears no one at PayPal bothered to set this up with Mastercard.
Mastercard took a look and said "You can't do that." and suspended PayPal from making credits to users's cards. Mastercard doesn't support Credits to cards unless they are reversals of transactions.
The banking industry is PO'd at them, Mastercard now is. They won't have a lot of friends in 6 months or so.
posted on December 25, 2000 05:33:08 PM
If Paypal ever, AND I MEAN EVER !, pulls a stupid stunt like this on me, I do not care how much it is ! I will personally fly down to their location and knock someones teeth out !!!!!
I do not stand for anyone screwing with my money ! I take it personal and deal with it personally !
posted on December 25, 2000 05:47:10 PM
Thats why I have stuck with personal checks, and money orders!! I had a lady that beamed me $14.95 and I had no account. They tried to make me sign up to send it back to her. That was over 6 months ago, and her money is still in "limbo". Isnt there a way for her to get it back, and how are they allowed to beam you money with no account?
posted on December 25, 2000 06:44:56 PM
Trying to address all the points that were brought up...
Some credit cards are a member of a system that allows positive amounts to be credited (not just reversals of charges) and some are not. It seems that foreign Mastercards are not part of this system. Paypal probably jumped the gun and announced that they could credit Mastercard without checking it out. It would not be the first time that Paypal made an announcement or a promise without checking it out. Remember "always free," "we will not force you to upgrade," "there can be no charge backs" and many similar statements? It just further illustrates that despite all the stupid mistakes that left them with egg on their face, PP still acts first and thinks second.
If they access you bank account, you do not need to sue them. You can walk right into your bank and file an affidavit stating that this is unauthorized. Unlike credit card payments, bank account charges go through a federally regulated ACH transfers. The rules are very strict and without written authorization from the account holder (not just checking off a box on a web page) the account holder can demand it back. Of course, credit card charges can also be charged back. So if you make a habit of checking your bank account and credit card regularly (I check it on the web every day) you can act quickly.
As for the claim that PP can't access your bank account unless you are verified, the fact is that anyone who ever paid you through an ACH transfer can reverse such payment. So if you ever had PP put money into your account, they can take it out. However, there is a limited amount of time in which they can do this. But it seems that PP interprets the little check box you fill in when verifying as permission to do this long after the federal limit has expired. Again, you can file against it.
For more details on protecting yourself, read the updated info I posted, including the new info on the Paypal page and using Paypal safely.
posted on December 26, 2000 02:04:35 PM
Pocono- fascinating post! I'm definitely tuned in to hear the outcome.
cix- remind me not to get on your bad side! sheesh!
chum- sux for her, but thankfully not your problem as long as your terms of sale were clearly outlined.
vorlon- when I accepted Yahoo's PayDirect service I routinely used the funds to credit my MasterCard, as I don't have a checking account. I stopped accepting PayDirect recently, but would be interested to know if anyone has any info whether that is just a PayPal thing, or if MasterCard has ix-nayed ALL third-party payment service credits. Anyone?????
posted on December 26, 2000 02:25:56 PM
CHUM - All she has to do is go into her Paypal account and click the cancel button to reverse that payment to you. Her account will be credited that money again.
posted on December 26, 2000 02:51:42 PM
My mastercard DOES accept transfers from paydirect to my account. That is how I handle all paydirect payments, never any problem with it.
Charging a credit card or debit card is not accessing your bank account. Registering a debit card with the Visa/MC logo on it is the same as putting a credit card of file.
Again, ACH transfers (withdrawals, deposits) are federally regulated items. There is no implied permission to access a bank account and we would not access your bank account without your permission.
The only scenario that could come into play is if a charge was placed on a DEBIT CARD registered as a credit card in our system for recoverables.This is not the same as directly accessing the bank account
