
PayPal adds “non-discouragement” clause to their User Agreement - striking
https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/upcoming-policies-full?locale.x=en
======
phyzome
«In representations to your customers or in public communications, you agree
not to mischaracterize PayPal as a payment method. At all of your points of
sale (in whatever form), you agree not to try to dissuade or inhibit your
customers from using PayPal; and, if you enable your customers to pay you with
PayPal, you agree to treat PayPal’s payment mark at least at par with other
payment methods offered.»

If you have to add that to your User Agreement, what does that say about your
service?

~~~
elcapitan
"you agree not to mischaracterize PayPal as a payment method"

English is not my first language, does this mean that by calling PayPal a
"payment method" i mischaracterize it? (is it a .. payment service ..
whatever?) Or does it mean that I agree not to "mischaracterize" PayPal in
general because I don't like it? (then why would I offer it)

~~~
droithomme
Your english is good. It's very unclear what it means as the sentence can be
parsed different ways. That suggests that either their lawyers are incompetent
and shouldn't be let near a contract, or they are are competent and therefore
are intentionally trying to fool their customers.

It's probably incompetence though since this can work both ways. If PayPal
tried to bring legal action with this clause, the first defense one would look
at is to simply respond, "Where did I say it was a payment method? The clause
says I can't mischaracterize it as a payment method, and I didn't."

In any case as it reads most simply it says you can't call PayPal a payment
method. I doubt that's what they really meant to say.

~~~
randallsquared
It can only be parsed different ways under incompatible assumptions about
whether PayPal is a payment method.

If it actually is a payment method (as their lawyers undoubtedly take as a
given), then it limits mischaracterization to aspects of PayPal that do not
involve its character _as a payment method_.

Only if you already believe it is somehow "not a payment method" does the
other reading make any sense.

~~~
__s
I also interpreted it as "PayPal is not a payment method" when reading. Legal
statements shouldn't rely on out-of-contract context to parse

~~~
guptaneil
IANAL, but it's not exactly "out-of-contract." The term "payment method"
appears 49 times in the User Agreement[1].

Having said that, a quick skim suggests the term is used inconsistently.
Sometimes it refers to PayPal as a payment method, other times it refers to
the information you enter into PayPal (ie credit card, bank account, etc) as
payment methods. This is because PayPal is both a payment method itself and a
wrapper service for many payment methods. For example:

    
    
      Your PayPal balance, if you used your PayPal balance as the payment method or a bank account as the payment method, once the money clears the bank.
    

So while it is confusing, I don't think you'd get very far with the "PayPal is
not a payment method" interpretation.

1:
[https://www.paypalobjects.com/webstatic/ua/pdf/US/en_US/ua.p...](https://www.paypalobjects.com/webstatic/ua/pdf/US/en_US/ua.pdf)

~~~
droithomme
That is not correct. When one contracting party is in a superior position,
courts consistently rule against the drafter of the agreement when there is
ambiguous language. It's a long held legal principle taught in contract
classes at law school.

~~~
eriknstr
Glad to hear that.

------
jseliger
I'm amazed people will still use Paypal. The horror stories about it are
legion online; I had my own, many years ago, when I did some editing work for
someone who then disputed the charge on their credit card. Paypal then
retroactively decided that _I_ had a negative balance on my account!

At the time I was young and stupid and idealistic and principled enough to
waste a lot of time suing Paypal and the collections agency in small claims
court (suing anyone in small claims court can be a pretty bad idea, even if
you are technically in the right: [https://jakeseliger.com/2010/08/28/dont-
rent-an-apartment-fr...](https://jakeseliger.com/2010/08/28/dont-rent-an-
apartment-from-navid-abedian-in-tucson-arizona-or-how-i-learned-to-be-wary-of-
lawsuits) , if your time and attention are worth anything). Still, I did
definitely, definitively learn that you cannot trust and should not use
Paypal.

~~~
analog31
I've used PayPal to take payments for my side business, for upwards of a
decade -- well over 1000 sales. I've never had a single glitch.

Every once in a while, I look into alternative services. So far, PayPal is the
only service that lets me run my business using a static web page. They
provide the checkout system and handle the card payment for me.

If I use Stripe, I have to create and maintain some kind of active server to
process the transactions. With other services, there's always something that
makes it onerous to use.

In the long run, I think the buyer protections are more of a benefit than a
risk to me. They reassure the customer that I won't screw with their credit
card number, or just vanish overnight with no recourse to them.

Note that as a manufacturer, my cost-of-goods is a small fraction of the
selling price, so my risk is less than someone using PayPal for a pure cash
transaction such as getting paid for work. Also, a physical good that can be
returned kind of sets the bar for any customer who wants to hassle me.

So far, the only disputes I've received have been when somebody orders my
gadget by accident, and enters a dispute so I can cancel the transaction.

~~~
striking
You can set up a web hook somewhere.
[https://www.webscript.io](https://www.webscript.io) is "unlimited" for $5/mo,
and AWS Lambda probably also works.

~~~
pdonis
That's still more work than it takes to serve a static web page. Plus, you
have to be a programmer.

~~~
analog31
Indeed. In fact, I'm an avid programmer, but I'm not a programmer of _that_
stuff. And I'm somewhat fearful of doing it wrong and creating some kind of
massive security nightmare for myself or for my customers.

------
adamqureshi
PP froze my account. (concentrated buyer exposure) They asked me what im
selling, i said i offer software services , they asked what is the product ,
what do i deliver, i said i deliver code , they asked for the service
agreement, i said well you'd have to ask the buyer that. They asked me to send
them the last 4 invoices , i did. long story short , It was PITA to refund my
bread , getting paid with STRIPE is better now. WHAT a damn hassle! I got the
buyer on the phone W/ PP.PP said to me only thing i can do i is refund the
last 4 invoices and get paid outside PP. Buyer said there is NO issue at all
we are very happy with seller services. PP said to buyer: "nothing you did or
can do". PP said to " they'd hold my bread for 180 days" then said hold for 90
days OR i can refund the 4 invoices , each time i called i spoke to someone
different, they said it was their system, not my fault or the buyer , buyer
made no claims at all.. Luckily, the buyer was cool enough to help me. I had
to call PP each time todo a refund. Lift HOLD, refund, with then on the phone,
repeat. What a damn HASSLE! i set up stripe the next day and its all good to
go now! good lucky with PP. they can hold your shit without informing you and
you can't do jack shit. And i had people to pay! I am kinda pissed but happy i
got paid all my invoices. Does this mean i can't write a blog post about what
happ to me? maybe this type of shit is normal with PP.

~~~
angry-hacker
Write a blog post but use few paragraphs ;) the story is interesting but
difficult to read.

~~~
adamqureshi
dyslexia. ;-)

~~~
Sir_Cmpwn
PayPal froze my account (for concentrated buyer exposure). They asked me what
I'm selling, I said I offer software services. They asked what is the product,
what do I deliver, I said I deliver code. They asked for the service
agreement, I said "well, you'd have to ask the buyer for that". They asked me
to send them the last 4 invoices, so I did. Long story short, it was PITA to
refund my bread.

Getting paid with STRIPE is better now. WHAT a damn hassle! I got the buyer on
the phone with PayPal. PayPal said to me only thing I can do I is refund the
last 4 invoices and get paid outside PayPapl. Buyer said there is NO issue at
all we are very happy with seller services. They said to the buyer: "there's
nothing you did or can do". PayPal told me "they'd hold my bread for 180
days", then for 90 days, OR I can refund the 4 invoices. Each time I called I
spoke to someone different.

They said it was their system's fault, not mine or the buyer, the buyer made
no claims at all.. Luckily, the buyer was cool enough to help me. I had to
call PayPal each time to do a refund. Lift HOLD, refund, with them on the
phone, repeat. What a damn HASSLE!

I set up Stripe the next day and it's all good to go now! Good luck with
PayPal. They can hold your shit without informing you and you can't do jack
shit. And I had people to pay! I am kinda pissed but happy I got all of my
invoices paid. Does this mean I can't write a blog post about what happened to
me? Maybe this type of shit is normal with PayPal.

\- - -

If you'd like to write a blog post, feel free to reach out to me for editing
help. Email in my profile.

------
ve55
Paypal is offered a lot as an option for virtual goods, such as virtual items
or services for games. There is always a lot of caution around it, because
anyone that has used it in this area for longer than a day realizes that they
can be scammed nearly arbitrary amounts if they decide to trust payments from
Paypal.

For this reason, it's generally required either that you do out of bound
methods to help verify your identity (i.e. show us a picture of your ID and we
will make sure it matches your Paypal name after you pay us), and/or that you
have a lot of reputation within whatever community you're working from.

If you do this verification wrong as a merchant, you will find yourself
charged back with absolutely no recourse after you have only sold to a few
customers. I've seen this happy many times, sometimes with $10 and sometimes
with $1,000. Even if you do this verification correct, you can still find
yourself charged back with no recourse, so it's advised not to do this with
large payments or sketchy customers, especially in the area of virtual goods.
This is also commonly done in areas wiht donations, such as Twitch donations
of thouands of dollars being charged back after the sender has already
recieved their desired reaction/fame/etc.

Given what I have seen, I read this clause as a requirement that you are not
allowed to fairy inform users about the risks of Paypal, and depending on how
this requirement is enforced, it could mean the end of Paypal as a method in
the virtual goods area, as new methods like Bitcoin slowly take over due to
the lack of chargebacks.

------
throwawaydbfif
I can't believe PayPal and the credit card cartels can get away with this
shit. Card fees eat up an astounding amount of profit from low margin items,
retailers should be able to encourage whatever payment method they want.

If customers knew how much they were actually paying to these card companies
indirectly (thousands of dollars a year) most people would switch to cash

~~~
nayuki
True. At the same time, don't forget that banks charge business a small fee to
deposit cash into their bank account. For example:
[https://www.tdcanadatrust.com/products-services/small-
busine...](https://www.tdcanadatrust.com/products-services/small-
business/fees.jsp)

~~~
tveita
In Canada the Interac debit card network has transaction fees on the order of
a few cents. It's crazy how much money US payment processors manage to skim
off.

~~~
throwawaydbfif
It's crazy that having a couple huge companies that silently collude to
maintain their existing market share somehow isn't antitrust

------
justinzollars
Just under the non-discouragement clause:

We are changing the standard transaction fee for sellers selling goods or
services online to buyers outside the U.S. from 3.9% to 4.4% plus the existing
fixed fee based on the currency.

~~~
lathiat
holy hell, that is getting ridiculous

------
inopinatus
I run a two-sided network. Our providers sometimes ask if PayPal is possible.
It's helpful they include draconian language like this in their contracts;
giving me something to reference, other than the myriad horror stories, when
saying No.

They're their own worst enemy.

~~~
cardiffspaceman
I read that draconian language myself back when the buzz first started about
Paypal, too. I don't understand how convenience is so valuable that you'd put
your whole account at risk.

------
bencollier49
"At all your points of sale (in whatever form)"

Does this not mean that any bricks'n'clicks business has to offer Paypal at
their physical counter? And that they can't levy variable card processing
fees, at least not where the fee for Paypal is higher?

~~~
edoceo
Thank you for "bricks-n-clicks"

------
celticninja
People will continue to prefer PayPal alternatives when the costs are so much
higher to use paypal and I would assume this is generally difficult to enforce
because it relies on a user telling paypal that a vendor asked them to use an
alternative method. I would make paypal my last payment option offered to a
buyer.

~~~
hackermailman
There's sites where they openly ask buyers not to use PP for some items that
are high fraud risk and allow PP for less risky items. This means retailers
will just drop PP as an option completely. I generally use it for most of my
online buying as it's become difficult lately to use prepaid cards for some
reason, I used to be able to effortlessly convert cryptocurrency into a
virtual visa and buy anything but alas. Paypal, for buyers, is an easy
experience now there's no waiting for your account to be loaded from a bank.

~~~
toomuchtodo
As a buyer, I would rather send in a check or not make the purchase before
using Pay Pal.

------
DrScump
Prior posting, 45+ comments:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13591601](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13591601)

------
Animats
Why is eBay so protective of PayPal? PayPal has been a separate company from
eBay since 2015.

~~~
hazelnut
They still got binding contracts. For example they have to have PayPal as a
payment option till 2020 and a decent amount must be processed through PayPal.
It might change after 2020.

------
bcrescimanno
Disclaimer: PP employee--below opinions are my own and do not represent
PayPal.

Things I have actually seen myself:

* Charging a fee to use PayPal that is not charged otherwise.

* Modal dialogs before PayPal describing PayPal as slower / riskier / less customized / etc.

* Disallowing PayPal for certain items.

I'm sure there are a lot of others. As patio11 mentioned in a comment below,
this sort of boilerplate is common for Payments and I don't see it as
unreasonable to ask for equal treatment to be given.

~~~
minxomat
Charging extra for any payment method while offering other common ones is not
a problem at all. You have to consider the trouble that a massive number of
merchants have with paypal. The risk of dealing with something odd is
financially relevant. The time spent on conflict resolution (between merchant
and paypal that is) consumes time, which delays payments and has a cascading
effect on other operations. This time costs money, which many add as a fee for
people that want to use paypal.

I don't know a single commercial seller that once offered or still offers
paypal payments and doesn't have a horror story that resulted in serious
financial and operational trouble for them.

PP could introduce this if they had a good image. Right now it's considered by
many to be the ... Oracle of payment processing.

