posted on December 7, 2000 04:50:30 AM new
PayPal is taking 45 days to credit everyone's credit card only because you let them.
You can go on-line and see who received the payment transfer (ps2cart.com). All Paypal has to do is run that report and punch in your credit card number and amount into their credit card machine and WOW...credit appears next business night.
Everyone filling out forms and allowing Paypal to use your money for 45 days are foolish.
Paypal is also trying drag this out because they know that 90 days after ANY charge on your card, you cannot dispute that charge and it sticks for ever.
No chargebacks after 90 days on any credit card and you add the 45 days they tell you they (paypal) need and the 45 to wait on the order then BOOM...they keep your money.
Call your credit card company today and dispute the charges...
Paypal is a leach and I will never use them again for any transaction.
posted on December 7, 2000 09:46:59 AM new
HI scooterman557,
I would like to see this resolved and I have brought this to attention. Can you please email me with the information so that I can get some traction on getting this resolved for you? I need the email address of the account.
posted on December 7, 2000 09:52:05 AM newskooterman557: From where does your information come?
In 1998 I redid an old victorian home and purchased wall-to-wall carpeting for three floors. After 4 months the carpet began to "ripple". After contact with the carpet firm and getting the runaround, I stopped payment on the charge. That was probably SIX MONTHS after it appeared and five months after it was PAID. I believe the timeframe for stopping a charge is more liberal, and without a signature (like mine was for balance) I am rather sure it is one year.
posted on December 7, 2000 10:20:12 AM new
paypaldamon..
Instead of dealing about this one person at the time like asking each of them for email with info. Why don't you just go look for everyone who sent payment to PS2Cart.com?
It should be easy right? Just pull out all the transactions to PS2Cart.com, and refund them...all the data should be in your database right?
I am one of the person who paid to PS2Cart using Paypal. The fraud claims through paypal is way too complicated...I mean there is no specific procedure listed in the web site. It does tell us what those claims are, but all you say is to email, and we dont hear from you at all.
I've sent claims to Paypal regarding this issue, but all I get back is some automatic reply with more instructions. I followed the instructions and sent more mails. Guess what? I got more automatic reply.
It is great that you are woking on this matter, and I appriciate it, but can't you just refund to all of the people who sent the payment to PS2Cart? It is a fraud, and none of us is getting any shippment.
Thank you very much for your effort to solve this matter.
I hope that this gets cleared out and everyone can get refunded.
posted on December 7, 2000 10:38:12 AM new
Hi mogu,
Thanks for your thoughts. I am looking to help and get traction on this and I need the information sent directly to me to assist. I would need the account email address in order to get moving on this.
posted on December 7, 2000 10:57:04 AM new
Paypal Damon, I think Mogu is right. It shouldnt have to be like this to get a refund from Paypal. All I ever get is automated replys too.
If you wish to help me out..here is my email address I used with paypal. [email protected]
The email address I sent my money to was [email protected]
Seeing as though its not Dec 15th, and the police are still investigating..what if this turns out to be a false alarm. Is Paypal waiting until everyone is sure its a fraud? Up until this point its all speculation. I for one would rather get a PS2 than my money back..as I am sure is the case with everyone. If everyone is backing out before the date ps2cart.com said they would have shipment..How are they responsible? No one knows for sure what the deal is except the police. I would hope that Paypal is working with the police, to find out the real story behind this. Technically ps2cart.com has untill the 15th to get us a PS2. (and I think that is why the police havent done any arrests yet)
I hope this post doesnt rub anyone the wrong way. I just have seen stuff like this happen way to many time on the internet....everything gets blown way out of proportion, and for all we know it could be legit.
Paypal Damon, I for one would like to wait till the 15th (or more substantial evidence is found) before I try and get my money back....BUT I dont think waiting another 45 days after that is right at all.
I am curious to hear your opinion on the matter.
Thank You for your help.
Jason Boudreau
[email protected]
[ edited by dunebuggyjay on Dec 7, 2000 10:59 AM ]
posted on December 7, 2000 10:59:16 AM new
I see. How about setting up a link in Paypal website to a page where you can ask for email adderss for the people who had paid to Game Tek.
This way, people can just provide their e-mail addresses there, and you can save a lot of time and effort going through the database......just a thought...
Well, I'm glad that somebody is working hard regarding this case.
By the way, to what e-mail address should we send our info for you to get started? You asked scooterman557 for his info earlier..
posted on December 7, 2000 01:23:48 PM new
Well, we would still have to wait till what
that investigation turns out.
Seems like Game Tek still clamis that we will get our system...
From an article I read at ocregister.com...
"A company owner told police that orders made by Nov. 6 will be delivered by Dec. 15, and orders made after Nov. 6 will be received by Dec. 20, police said. They would not release the owner's name."
Well, if I do receive my system, I have nothing to complain...
[ edited by mogu on Dec 7, 2000 01:26 PM ]
posted on December 7, 2000 01:36:48 PM new
Paypal Damon...
Thank you for your concern in this matter. I have also brought from ps2cart.com through paypal and would like to receive a refund through your buyer protection policy. However, I have yet to hear from paypal, despite my replies to the correct e-mail addresses. Could you please tell me and others your e-mail address we could write you about this issue. You seem very curteous and willing to help in an obviously difficult situation for everyone! We would all like to see this resolved. Thanks!
posted on December 7, 2000 01:48:29 PM new
Damon Please, you had no problem finding people when you sent out the questionaires investigating this fraud. I will be glad to send yet another email to you this evening with my information. I know you can help us and would appreciate any help you can give. But by asking Scooterman for his information alone and acting like you can't get the information yourself (especially since we all have already sent this info to your company) makes me think you think we are stupid. This information has to be somewhere.
posted on December 7, 2000 03:30:03 PM new
I went to the ocr site and copied this. Most importantly..it states that the assets have been frozen. They do this to protect the consumer (you) this is because if they can prove fraud they have an asset base to return money from. This is what I thought would happen this is also why Gametek didn't get a chance to cash my cashiers check. Investigation is under way...hold on and file those reports and wait. Things will wash...it just takes time.
Info is copied and pasted below:
Assets of O.C. firm selling PlayStation 2s are frozen
CONSUMER: More than 100 people have complained that the Internet retailer hasn't delivered on orders for the game console.
December 6, 2000
By RACHANEE SRISAVASDI
The Orange County Register
FOUNTAIN VALLEY - Authorities have frozen the assets of a Fountain Valley Internet company that has taken 2,500 prepaid orders for the ultra- popular Sony PlayStation 2 but does not have the product in stock.
More than 100 customers of GAMETEK have complained to police that they had paid $350 for the computer-entertainment console but have not received one, Fountain Valley police Sgt. Jim Perry said.
A company owner told police that orders made by Nov. 6 will be delivered by Dec. 15, and orders made after Nov. 6 will be received by Dec. 20, police said. They would not release the owner's name.
The U.S. Postal Inspectors Office, which is investigating along with the FBI and the Fountain Valley and Palo Alto police departments, froze the company's assets within the past week, Perry said.
Sony spokeswoman Molly Smith said she had not heard of any fraudulent claims regarding GAMETEK, located at 17284 Newhope St. Sony sells the console through a select number of Internet companies, and some distributors might sell the system to Web sites such as GAMETEK, Smith said.
Sony has been unable to meet the demand for the PlayStation 2, which plays video games, CD music and DVD movies.
The U.S. and Canadian Better Business Bureaus warned last week that some Internet companies are falsely advertising that they have the PlayStation 2 for sale.
GAMETEK is operating without a city business permit and has not delivered any PlayStation 2s, Perry said. The company's Web site - www.ps2cart.com - has been shut down.
Anyone who placed an order with GAMETEK is asked to call police at (714) 593-4485 or fill out a report at www.fountainvalley.org/gametek.
posted on December 7, 2000 06:04:39 PM new
Hi everyone,
Please visit this website for the latest information on this case (PS2 or Gametek).
http://www.fountainvalley.org/gametek/
We are working to get the user's money back to you as quickly as possible. You will be seeing an affidavit shortly that will need to be filled out (this should be in several days/early next week). Once this has been done, the money will be refunded back as quickly as possible.
Please realize that this matter is a legal issue and that is holding up some of the process of getting funds back. It is not being done to hurt our users.
posted on December 7, 2000 08:28:55 PM newIt is not being done to hurt our users.
Surely someone who gave PayPal money but PayPal didn't give the money to Gametek shouldn't have to endure a delay. I mean, what more information do you need? What would an affadavit say which would be useful? Just do the right thing and issue the credits.
Regarding those who paid with credit card and the money was sent to Gametek, it would sure seem to just make sense to deal with them quickly. As it is, they feel that their rights to chargeback are threatened by delay. If PayPal were to go bankrupt, this would be a real concern, because the bank would be on the hook, and the bank would be expected to do no more than they absolutely had to. (for what it's worth, the rules for how long one has to submit a chargeback request are largely set by banks which issue cards, and they're waived by those banks as the banks see fit. Generally, if the merchant is still around, the chargeback will be processed a lot later than 2-3 months. If the merchant is no longer around, that's a whole different story).
PayPal has to face this one head on, which is the opposite of what's going on now. It sure seems that what's going on now is intended and designed to create delay. This is the tactic of a company going down.
Deliberate delay is done to hurt PayPal users, sorry to contradict paypaldamon's claim.
posted on December 7, 2000 11:50:02 PM new
Hi Sg52,
That won't be needed. We are not in danger of going out of business (recent financing round successful and the Intuit deal).
This is a legal case at this time. Certain steps have to be taken to proceed with the case and we are working a fix around that should be available in the earlier part of next week to get the refunds out as soon as possible . In return, there will be some cooperation needed from defrauded users (affidavits) to help get this case legally settled.
This matter has been given urgent priority and it has a great deal of attention directed at resolving this in a timely manner.
posted on December 8, 2000 05:36:06 AM new
Ok, paypal has been "investigating" this for quite a while. We should not HAVE TO sign and affidavit to get OUR money back. The reason while your financials are doing well is because you are earning interest off of peoples money.
posted on December 8, 2000 06:56:05 AM new
In this particular case I think Paypal is proceeding in the only way possible.
Consider this scenerio: A customer buys 2 PS2's from GameTek and stops payment on the credit card. The same customer applies for refund from Paypal. The credit card debit to Paypal is not instant, but the credit to the card will be nearly instant. If Paypal refunded all users now, they would be subject to potential double losses. The CC issuing banks credit back the cards as soon as they receive a written complaint, prior to completing their investigation, and the issuing banks most often side with consumers.
I suspect the afadavit will contain a disclaimer that (contingent upon the refund) the customer has not/will not contest the charge, or verbiage to that effect.
The folks that paid by CC are protected, those that paid by Paypal are doubly so. I feel very sorry for those that paid by other methods.
posted on December 8, 2000 10:33:49 AM new
I came across this Today.
From http://foxnews.com/scitech/120800/ps2scam.sml
One southern California company has been busted for selling the gaming console over the Web, but not delivering on their end of the deal. Police say the company called Game-Tek took more than 2,000 orders out of a tiny rented office in Fountain Valley.
The landlord of the building says the three men who rented the office would show up each day to check their mail, which was mostly checks. Apparently jilted customers notified police, who moved in and made the arrests.
Experts suggest investigating the credentials of any unknown online store before you buy. But what to do if a sale does go sour?
"You can always call the Better Business Bureau," said Sgt. Jim Perry, of the Fountain Valley Police Department.
posted on December 8, 2000 10:53:07 AM new
Paypaldamon - That might be true NOW. But when I paid in October, it wasn't. Then a few days later Gametek said their account was on hold. I tried to get my money back from YOU because gametek hadn't w/d my funds yet. Yet, it still wasn't a criminal investigation. I was told that couldn't happen because their account was frozen. Yet, the money is sitting in Paypal's bank account collecting interest while we wait. Sounds like a good deal for you all, but we should have get it back now.
posted on December 8, 2000 11:17:41 AM new
You know what pisses me off is that article under foxnews has a quote from Sgt. Jim Perry "You can always call the Better Business Bureau" - I did contact them on the web and RAN the co through their COMPANY REPORT link...and do you know what? It came out o.k. - nothing bad was stated until DEC 13th!!!! This seems to be a helluva delay in my opinion. And checking with the better business bureau would not have helped us before making our purchases even after making our purchases...I contacted them on the Friday the 1st or Monday the 4th and still have not received anything back by email as stated AND even though I had a complaint in - this was not shown on the web UNTIL THE 13TH OF DEC. BBB did not come through, there were complaints out before DEC 13th.
posted on December 8, 2000 11:30:16 AM new
HI scottv,
This is a criminal investigation and that is why we are doing a workaround. You will not lose any money and I am sorry for the inconvenience, but these steps have to go this way in order to go forward on the case.
posted on December 8, 2000 04:06:47 PM newConsider this scenerio: A customer buys 2 PS2's from GameTek and stops payment on the credit card. The same customer applies for refund from Paypal. The credit card debit to Paypal is not instant, but the credit to the card will be nearly instant. If Paypal refunded all users now, they would be subject to potential double losses.
It works better than that for a merchant who wants to do the right thing, bennybbb. A absolute defense to the chargeback is showing a card credit, the merchant bank protects the merchant from double losses.
I'm sure that PayPal would prefer to do something other than issue credit card credits, and their "legal" issue includes some way to avoid that.
posted on December 8, 2000 04:21:42 PM newIn return, there will be some cooperation needed from defrauded users (affidavits) to help get this case legally settled.
For people whose money was sent by PayPal to Gametek, this would seem marginally required, PayPal is at least entitled to ask if GameTek sent the stuff, although we know they didn't.
But for people whose money was kept by PayPal, what possible justification can there be for an affidavit as a condition of getting one's money back? The facts are clear. What would the affidavit say which would add to what is already known?
Here's what's going on here. If you put this kind of ball into the other guy's court, no matter how easy the serve, no more than 95% will return the ball, a percentage which goes down over time. People forget, move with no forwarding address, die, have strokes, bought under circumstances which preclude further interaction, whatnot. So stalling, then requiring an affidavit, yields no less than a 5% reduction in one's liability, and maybe as high as 30%.
That is not done with the interest of one's users in mind.
posted on December 9, 2000 08:22:23 AM new"A absolute defense to the chargeback is showing a card credit, the merchant bank protects the merchant from double losses."
" I'm sure that PayPal would prefer to do something other than issue credit card credits, and their "legal" issue includes some way to avoid that. "
I believe you are correct sg52. Infact, I would think a card credit is probably the only absolute defense, unless the merchant had something like a signed afadavit on file.
Under the orginal merchant agreement I had with my bank, credits were not subject to a % fee, they were deducted from the net deposit. This changed years ago. Each credit will cost PP $4.00 or so, a chargeback (at least at my bank) is $10.00, and that $10.00 fee sticks even if the matter is resolved in my favor.
Damon promises resolution by next week. Why not wait and see? Your right to chargeback is not jeopardized by such a small delay.
posted on December 9, 2000 08:43:15 AM newunless the merchant had something like a signed afadavit on file.
I guess this anticipates "defrauded buyer supplies PayPal with an affidavit that PayPal has refunded the money"?
Now would the defrauded buyer sign such an affidavit before or after being refunded the money?
..it's a problem. An affidavit is not a contract, it's a statement of fact. But let's imagine a contract signed by defrauded buyers which says "I agree not to chargeback so long as PayPal refunds my money". And PayPal refunds the money to a PayPal account. Defrauded buyer cleans out the account, charges back, non-receipt. PayPal sends in the contract. Sorry PayPal. Chargeback stands.
posted on December 9, 2000 09:07:37 AM new
From my post above:
"I suspect the afadavit will contain a disclaimer that (contingent upon the refund) the customer has not/will not contest the charge, or verbiage to that effect."
Would be sent BEFORE the refund I should think.
If PP received a chargeback AFTER refunding a customer and supplied the CC co. with an afadavit (and proof of refund) I guarantee the chargeback would not stand.
I was a merchant for all cards for 14 years. I had less than 20 charges ever contested, only 2 stuck. The banks will side with consumers, and indeed instantly credit back disputed charges. They do, however, investigate the claim and reversals are common.
I would wait a week and see what happens. I think PP is acting in good faith. The promised delivery date was 12/15 and yet PP is attempting to resolve this before that date arrives. I think thats GOOD service.
posted on December 9, 2000 09:13:49 AM newthe afadavit will contain a disclaimer that (contingent upon the refund) the customer has not/will not contest the charge, or verbiage to that effect."
That wouldn't be an affidavit.
That would be a contract.
There are only very few defenses against non-receipt chargeback. NOT included is a contract signed by the buyer to not chargeback. In essence, buyer cannot waive rights granted by federal law.
posted on December 9, 2000 09:39:55 AM new
Well then I am confused. I thought an affidavit was a notarized sworn statement. I do not understand why, when the buyer is promised refund from PP, that PP cannot protect themselves against a double loss.
I remember my merchant contract included terms stating that orders paid by credit card could only be refunded by credit card. I imagine those terms were addressing this exact problem. If a customer contested a charge the merchant bears the burden of proof.
If Paypal elects to use alternate methods of refunding it would seem they have great exposure. This is why I believe they will insist on some sort of statement from the user.
I know you are correct about the few defenses to a 'non-receipt' chargeback sg52.
In those cases it would seem the only ones are proof of delivery or proof of refund. A mess to be sure.
