posted on August 3, 2002 09:15:22 PM new
Here is a link of an official government site for license renewal. Is there a charge for credit card use, absolutely.
posted on August 3, 2002 10:32:32 PM new
There are laws, and then there are rules. EBay and PayPal have rules against surcharges. If you (a US seller) charge a surcharge for credit card fees on eBay and it is reported you will be warned to remove that. If you continue to charge a surcharge your auction will be pulled. If you continue after that you will be NARU'd. This isn't a theory. EBay isn't about to debate with a seller on this issue either.
Yes, many government sites have charged a 'convenience fee' for years when a credit card is used. Usually you don't have an option on whether or not to purchase what they are selling. One of the advantages of being a government branch I suppose.
Can a merchant charge me a fee to use my MasterCard card? Can a merchant require a minimum purchase amount to use my MasterCard card?
The answer to the first question is almost never; the answer to the second question is not ever. Merchants must follow certain acceptance rules in order to be granted the privilege of accepting MasterCard cards. One of these rules specifically prohibits the practice of surcharging, that is, charging a customer a fee for using a MasterCard card over and above the sale amount. Under very specific conditions, however, a merchant can charge customers - including those using a MasterCard card - a fee in addition to the transaction amount. As a general rule, such a fee doesn't violate the MasterCard rules provided the fee is charged to all customers engaging in the same transaction, regardless of the form of payment. Keep in mind, however, that it is not a violation of the MasterCard rules for a merchant to offer customers a price discount for payment in cash, provided payment by MasterCard card is on at least as favorable terms as payment by any other means.
Another MasterCard acceptance rule prohibits merchants that accept MasterCard cards from establishing any minimum amount below which the merchant won't accept payment via MasterCard card. If a merchant displays a decal with the MasterCard logo to indicate that MasterCard cards are accepted, that merchant can not condition a sale based upon the cardholder disclosing any other information or identification, except under very specific conditions, such as when merchant needs to deliver merchandise to the cardholder's home or business.
It's not always easy to tell whether a merchant is complying with MasterCard acceptance rules. It's important to MasterCard that you are treated fairly and in accordance with those acceptance rules when you shop using your MasterCard card.
posted on August 6, 2002 01:14:50 AM new
Credit card companies all have as part of thier standard agreement that you may not charge a fee or percentage for customers to use thier card.
If you violate the agreement and someone complains, be prepared to lose your merchant account.
posted on August 7, 2002 09:30:56 PM new
The post is about if it is legal or not. There is no question that it is against PayPal and Ebay's rules. But they also claim that it is illegal. I have found that to be not at all true. Here is a link to a California Government site that contradicts PayPal and Ebay's claim.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/online/vrir/vr_top2.htm
posted on August 7, 2002 09:47:55 PM new
I don't believe government agencies such as the department of motor vehicles fall in to the classification of 'retailers'. Yes it is illegal for retailers to charge a surcharge in California, but more important than that Meg doesn't allow it on eBay.
California Civil Code Section 1747-1748.7 1748.1. (a) No retailer in any sales, service, or lease transaction with a consumer may impose a surcharge on a cardholder who elects to use a credit card in lieu of payment by cash, check, or similar means. A retailer may, however, offer discounts for the purpose of inducing payment by cash, check, or other means not involving the use of a credit card, provided that the discount is offered to all prospective buyers.
posted on August 7, 2002 11:16:20 PM new
Again, Uaru you post only half truths. This shows that until Payponzi went with Wells Fargo a couple of months ago they were violating the law. Repeat after me "I must always tell the whole truth".
This is California law. It was passed in 1989.
1748.7.
(a) No person shall process, deposit, negotiate, or obtain payment of a credit card charge through a retailer's account with a financial institution or through a retailer's agreement with a financial institution, card issuer, or organization of financial institutions or card issuers if that retailer did not furnish or agree to furnish the goods or services which are the subject of the charge.
(b) No retailer shall permit any person to process, deposit, negotiate, or obtain payment of a credit card charge through the retailer's account with a financial institution or the retailer's agreement with a financial institution, card issuer, or organization of financial institutions or card issuers if that retailer did not furnish or agree to furnish the goods or services which are the subject of the charge.
(c) Subdivisions (a) and (b) do not apply to any of the following:
1) A person who furnishes goods or services on the business premises of a general merchandise retailer and who processes,deposits, negotiates, or obtains payment of a credit card charge through that general merchandise retailer's account or agreement.
(2) A general merchandise retailer who permits a person described in paragraph (1) to process, deposit, negotiate, or obtain payment of a credit card charge through that general merchandise retailer's account or agreement.
(3) A franchisee who furnishes the cardholder with goods or services that are provided in whole or in part by the franchisor and who processes, deposits, negotiates, or obtains payment of a creditcard charge through that franchisor's account or agreement.
(4) A franchisor who permits a franchisee described in paragraph(3) to process, deposit, negotiate, or obtain payment of a creditcard charge through that franchisor's account or agreement.
(5) The credit card issuer or a financial institution or a parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of the card issuer or a financial institution.
(6) A person who processes, deposits, negotiates, or obtains payment of less than five hundred dollars ($500) of credit card charges in any one year period through a retailer's account or agreement. The person shall have the burden of producing evidence that the person transacted less than five hundred dollars ($500) in credit card charges during any one year period.
(d) Any person injured by a violation of this section may bring an action for the recovery of damages, equitable relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
(e) Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each occurrence in which a person processes, deposits,negotiates, or otherwise seeks to obtain payment of a credit card charge in violation of subdivision (a) constitutes a separate offense.
(f) The penalties and remedies provided in this section are in addition to any other remedies or penalties provided by law.
(g) The exemptions from this title specified in Section 1747.03 do not apply to this section.
(h) As used in this section:
1) "General merchandise retailer" means any person or entity,regardless of the form of organization, that has continuously offered for sale or lease more than 100 different types of goods or services to the public in this state throughout a period which includes the immediately preceding five years.
(2) "Franchisor" has the same meaning as defined in Section 31007of the Corporations Code.
(3) "Franchisee" has the same meaning as defined in Section 31006 of the Corporations Code.
posted on August 8, 2002 01:15:59 AM newclub1manAgain, Uaru you post only half truths. This shows that until Payponzi went with Wells Fargo a couple of months ago they were violating the law. Repeat after me "I must always tell the whole truth".
Club1man,
I wish I knew what the hell you were talking about. I'll bet you wish you knew what the hell you were talking about.
PayPal signed with Wells Fargo to process payments and that doesn't happen till November, they are with EPX now, and before EPX they were using Chase, and before Chase I think they were using First Data. Now what this has to do with the "credit surcharge" question only you know (or suspect you know.)
If you've got proof that PayPal was in violation of the law why did you lose your case with PayPal? Did you have a team of 3 lawyers that slapped each other around a bunch, and poked one another in the eye? Was one of them heavy set with real short hair and did he say "Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk" a lot?
Oops, I just remembered, the arbitrator was on the take and he screwed you over too. Seems like folks just line up to screw over poor old club1man... that must really suck. You need some sympathy.
AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
There feel better now?
You can't handle the truth! How'd that sound? Did you like my Jack Nicolson imitation?
posted on August 8, 2002 06:18:50 AM new
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
June 20, 2002, 9:55 AM PT
update Wells Fargo will process credit card payments for PayPal under a deal the companies announced on Thursday.
Reader Resources
PayPal review
Wells Fargo will become PayPal's third credit card processor in less than a year, displacing InterCept's Electronic Payment Exchange (EPX). PayPal originally disclosed the deal last week in a regulatory filing.
This was done so payponzi could not be charged for violating the law. It was information that was found out after the arbitration and filed in the final brief. The arbitrator chose to ignore it. Why not, one of his clients is Wells Fargo.
posted on August 8, 2002 07:14:19 AM newclub1manWells Fargo will become PayPal's third credit card processor in less than a year, displacing InterCept's Electronic Payment Exchange (EPX). PayPal originally disclosed the deal last week in a regulatory filing. This was done so payponzi could not be charged for violating the law. It was information that was found out after the arbitration and filed in the final brief. The arbitrator chose to ignore it. Why not, one of his clients is Wells Fargo.
Again, you seem to be making less sense than ever if that's possible. I honestly don't understand what's going on with you. Care to try and answer a few question?
1. The agreement between PayPal and Wells Fargo was announced in June 2002. Didn't you go to arbitration in January 2002?
2. What difference does it make if Wells Fargo or EPX or Chase or First Data processes PayPal's payments?
3. Were you able to understand what this thread was about before you arrived with your Jerry Farwell attitude? "PayPonzi! Repent sinners!"
posted on August 8, 2002 08:27:54 AM new
Your lack of reading comprehension amazes me. With almost 3700 postings, you haven't gotten out of the first grade. So I'll use the KISS system.
The agreement between PayPal and Wells Fargo was announced in June 2002. Didn't you go to arbitration in January 2002?
The arbitration was Jan 21 & 22. Final briefs were made app. 45 days later, app mid March, which stated Payponzi was violating Cal. law. App. 30 days later mid April, arbitrator made his interim decision saying, that while Payponzi was probably violating the law it was not brought up in the arbitration, and he ignored it.
Within 2 months Payponzi changes to comply with the law.
What difference does it make if Wells Fargo or EPX or Chase or First Data processes PayPal's payments?
EXP is not a bank whereas Wells Fargo is.
Again EXP(against the law) Wells Fargo (not against the law)
Were you able to understand what this thread was about before you arrived with your Jerry Farwell attitude? "PayPonzi! Repent sinners!"
Oh yes, this thread is about Is charging a fee for credit card legal?
Fact is, if they were illegally making credit card transfers, then anything in reference to credit cards is illegal.
Also I find your repeated attacks on religion, while defending hate groups, such as the KKK and White power groups, totally offensive.
posted on August 8, 2002 09:38:02 AM newclub1manAlso I find your repeated attacks on religion, while defending hate groups, such as the KKK and White power groups, totally offensive.
Wow, you really are behind on the medication today aren't you. When did the mental breakdown occur before or after your venture into the high finance world of funding off-shore accounts via PayPal?
When I call you a Jerry Farwell I'm not attacking religion, I'm mocking your hell fire and damnation sermons from the mountain top. Now that I think about it I'm not being fair to Jerry Farwell.
My defense of the KKK and White power groups? Where'd that one come from? I'm shocked you didn't call me a pornographer and illegal weapons trafficer also. You really exercised some self control there didn't you?
I'm sure PayPal is terrified of an informed, eloquent, and coherent man as yourself contacting goverment agencies and officials. I shudder at the skillful lobbying you've managed.
Isn't it about time you moved over into the "EBay Outlook" forum with your sermons? The congregation here is getting rather slim and you richly deserve a larger audience.
I find your repeated rants and ravings highly entertaining, my only regret is after reading your posts I'm overwhelmed with a unexplainable craving for "Cocoa Puffs" "I'm cuckoo, cuckoo, for Cocoa Puffs." Why does that jingle keep going through my brain after reading your informative posts? Totally weird!
posted on August 8, 2002 12:16:16 PM new
uaru - Regarding your comments to Stoney: I'm shocked you didn't call me a pornographer and illegal weapons trafficer also.
... well, you were the one that brought up porn on e-bay and something about sex with an elephant in another thread.
And your comment: I'm sure PayPal is terrified of an informed, eloquent, and coherent man as yourself contacting goverment agencies and officials. I shudder at the skillful lobbying you've managed.
And I'm sure PayPal is equally proud of you, (though neither eloquent nor coherent), but for defending them each and every time, in each and every thread (FOR FREE EVEN!) and the skillful lobbying you've managed.... Oh, wait a minute, I don't remember anyone jumping on your bandwagon lately either. In fact, there've only been more falling off your wagon!
posted on August 8, 2002 12:51:51 PM newIsn't it about time you moved over into the "EBay Outlook" forum with your sermons? The congregation here is getting rather slim and you richly deserve a larger audience.
Guess you need to take you own advice. If you need travel pay I'll send ltl crafty some gold and she can send you some PAYPONZI dollars. Have a nice trip. (don't fall down and go boom) take an elephant
PALO ALTO, Calif., Aug 6 (Reuters) - PayPal Inc. <PYPL.O> Chief Executive Peter Thiel and Chief Financial Officer Roelof Botha have certified the company's financial statements, the online cash transfer service said in a regulatory filing on Tuesday.
Guess what, ltlCrafty today Botha is selling 21,000 shares. I think I'll buy them using a credit card and then charge it back on a "quality of goods" complaint ROFLMAO
[ edited by club1man on Aug 8, 2002 01:00 PM ]
posted on August 8, 2002 01:26:52 PM newltlcrafty1Oh, wait a minute, I don't remember anyone jumping on your bandwagon lately either.
You're right, I don't have the satisfaction of having club1man's status and having my own groupie like you.
That does hurts, and I'm struggling to get over that.
struggle struggle struggle struggle
Okay, I'm over it.
club1man, "EBay Outlook" is the most popular forum on AW, I post there a lot... you see you don't have to have a ticket to get over there. You take the little mouse (that thingie with the cord attached to it) and you click on here Ebay Outlook. You'll reach a much wider audience and I know you'll pick up a groupie or two, maybe not in the league of lilcrafty1, but you can hope. Hurry club1man, there are sinners there that haven't heard you spread the word of the temptations and evils of PayPal.
posted on August 9, 2002 12:43:06 AM new
uaru re: You're right, I don't have the satisfaction of having club1man's status and having my own groupie like you.
Maybe not, but you do carry the distinct status of being PayPal's #1 (and only) groupie. LMAO! You fool. Besides that, you're the one that replies to nearly every single one of Stoney's posts, not me. (Go look through a few threads, in case you're confused).
club1man - re: Botha's shares / quality of goods. You are too funny! And the sad part is, it would be true! LOL.
posted on August 9, 2002 06:17:26 AM newlilcrafty1you do carry the distinct status of being PayPal's #1 (and only) groupie. LMAO! You fool.
Yup, I'm a definite PayPal fan. PayPal has been bery, bery, good to me. Yes I'm a fool to argue with club1man and his little chihuahua, but boredom is my excuse at the moment so please indulge me my entertainment factor.
The entertainment factor got rather high when a little birdie informed me that club1man was entering back into the world of high finance and funding offshore numbered accounts again. When I checked out that info for myself and saw club1man's announcement that he'll soon be taking credit cards to fund these offshore numbered accounts again I nearly died laughing. I can hardly wait.
Wow, you really are behind on the medication today aren't you. When did the mental breakdown occur before or after your venture into the high finance world of funding off-shore accounts via PayPal?
You're right, I don't have the satisfaction of having club1man's status and having my own groupie like you.
LOL.