posted on October 4, 2000 02:44:37 PM new
As reported in this and other "newsgroups" PayPal has restricted access to numerous accounts on the pretense of "suspicious activity."
In another thread paypaldamon simply stated: "Under the terms of use we can restrict an account to validate the integrity of the funds."
PayPal's terms of service, however, state: "X.com reserves the right to hold funds beyond the normal distribution periods for transactions it deems suspicious to ensure integrity of the funds."
[II.2.(a) Rights and Disclaimers. Miscellaneous Disclaimers.]
PayPal's rights to "restrict" are confined to those transactions for which it can reasonably deem to be "suspicious"; PayPal's rights do not extend to any other transactions.
One might, therefore, take the position that PayPal is in violation of its own Terms of Service by failing to provide account holders with the specific transactions that are in question and by refusing account holders access to funds for valid transactions.
posted on October 4, 2000 03:44:10 PM new
Hi dimview,
There are issues regarding fraudulent accounts versus fraudulent transactions.
As I have mentioned several times now, engineering is working on getting it to a restricted transaction only basis to limit frustration in the event of a transaction received fraudulently. This will greatly alleviate the concerns expressed.
However, fraudulent accounts will be restricted.
Either case requires an investigation to see where the fraud comes from.
posted on October 4, 2000 04:12:21 PM new
"X.com reserves the right to hold funds beyond the normal distribution periods for transactions it deems suspicious to ensure integrity of the funds."
How long will "the normal distribution periods"? 1 month? 1 year ? or unlimit?
posted on October 4, 2000 11:22:32 PM new
Likewise, I have been a victim of a silly hacker's cute antics = sending me a paypal payment with a stolen credit card. It is true that Paypal has responded with the same accusatory actions on my account. At this point it is comical, however we (our company and legal counsel) believe that they have overstated their position to the point of possibly accusing ME of a crime or defaming my name. These types of policies need to be worked out in a growing enterprise, we understand that and are not quick to file suit, however Paypal's growth spurt is continuing to absorb their focus on quality customer service. We feel that sooner or later a class action suit will follow, forcing Paypal to follow guidelines set by banking institutions and good ethics.
posted on October 5, 2000 08:05:26 AM new
paypaldamon:
"There are issues regarding fraudulent accounts versus fraudulent transactions."
"As I have mentioned several times now, engineering is working on getting it to a restricted transaction only basis to limit frustration in the event of a transaction received fraudulently. This will greatly alleviate the concerns expressed."
Since PayPal's current practice of restricting entire accounts rather than restricting a single questionable transaction or series of questionable transactions, in violation of PayPal's own Terms of Service, one of the issues is whether PayPal is to be considered a credible online payment service.
What account holder would want to leave a large balance in their account (and that's the float on which PayPal wants to earn interest) if there is a risk they some day they will want to make a withdrawal or send payment to another PayPal account only to find all their funds frozen?
My practice is to withdraw funds via check request from my personal account whenever it is more than $50. I wonder how many others have adopted a similar "policy" in response to the risk of having their accounts frozen.
Kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Account holders withdraw funds because of a perceived risk, PayPal's float declines, PayPal announces that "always fees" is replacing "always free".
Interesting.
[ edited by dimview on Oct 5, 2000 08:08 AM ]
