So I came here to see if anyone looked up what sort of products and services they offer.
PayPal could have at least pointed towards the clause in their terms that is being used for the rejection.
My guess is either Google is encouraging PayPal to do this ban or PayPal is afraid of some societal backlash if people realize they are profiting off of spam.
I am honestly happy they are attempting to limit spam, but just surprised they are harming their bottom line to do it.
PayPal also does not do business with many Porn Websites, which are generally legal.
If you are subject to the whims and value judgments of individual PayPal employees, rather than policy documents, that is truly scary. Sell something that happens to offend a random employee's moral, political, or religious sensibilities? You might lose your account. What happens if a relative of a PayPal employee decides that you weren't fast enough with customer service, and tells them about it? Can that employee go searching for your account and kill it simply because they have a relative that wasn't impressed with the speed of your customer service?
The point is that these companies establish written policies for a reason. If those policies are not being followed, then businesses shouldn't use PayPal - not because they want to defend PBN sellers, but because their own business may be at risk even when they do nothing wrong.
This has always been the case. Paypal is extremely liberal with funds they seize or what accounts they shut down. At least, that's the image of them I've had for over a decade. Maybe they've since changed...but I wouldn't store any real amount of money in Paypal for any amount of time.
So if your policy documents don't actually govern your policies, then employees are banning businesses based on their personal value judgments. That is problematic for a large number of reasons.
Untrue. Often the exact breach is legally prohibited from being publicly shared, but if a company is banned, then a TOS breach has happened. There is an unbelievable amount of red tape and compliance within every process, both digital and human, that occurs with regards to money and transactions. Especially in the fintech space, PayPal internally is bound to governmental regulations and auditing far more strict than any regulations imposed on customers. To suggest that PayPal can just close accounts at whim for any other reason than enforcement of legally binding terms and confiscate customer funds is simply absurd.
Again, misplaced assumption and personal opinion. With some circumstances, especially if regulating bodies become involved, a company can be ordered by government to not share any further information with the other party, as well as freeze their funds. And even in the circumstances where that does not occur, I don't think a company is obligated to spell out for you what you violated. Sure, I agree that doesn't always look the best and it can seem like it happened "for no reason", but personally my opinion is that if someone told me I have violated TOS, I can read the few paragraphs for myself and figure it out. And they have over 250 million users, 8300 complaints over 3 years doesn't seem bad, and it looks like most of them were resolved. I get it, money gets people upset, and it's always tempting to see the "big bad corporation" turning its back on the little guy, but I personally feel like it gets blown out of proportion a lot. There's always more to the story...
Being in the industry, it just frustrates me when people think these big companies can do whatever they want at will, when really their hands are often tied much more than you think.
I know my experiences with them very much fall in the “big company doing whatever it wants at will” category, and I am not alone. Scores of others over the years have wound up as frustrated as you are by these comments in their dealings with PayPal.
especially if regulating bodies become involved, a company can be ordered by government to not share any further information with the other party,
This would apply to an absurdly small percentage of the accounts that PayPal closes on a daily basis.
Let's just say that their credibility seems a bit sketchy.
Which is, a claim worth considering? I am not convinced yet.
I suppose that the fact that PayPal is a money transfer service, which is necessary for many kinds of businesses, and maybe kind of a monopoly, that could be a reason to treat them as more like a government than some businesses should be treated?
That's no news. Many PP user are fully aware of that fact. There have been similar cases over the years, completely unrelated to PBNs. That's the deal with PP, take it or leave it.
I'm utterly sick of this kind of junk.
PBNs are garbagey, but trying to put them all down is unrealistic. And even if they could be stopped, it would only be a band aid fix, not addressing the real problems.
Spammers and their ilk, though, are not really famous for sticking to the truth.
I understand the dissatisfaction with half-measures. But I would argue as long as the actions have a meaningful impact and there isn't a promising alternative, it is still worthwhile.
I can imagine several plausible reasons, related to potential liability, but does that mean that if we're trying to outsource business functions to specialist firms that we can't expect them to be transparent in their operations?
In my opinion the reason for ban, even though mentioned that unrelated to their SaaS offering, is likely higher number of transactions with parties who have been also baned for some shady practices.
Such rat clusters are usualy nuked in batch.
Disclosure: I used to work in payment industry.
Unfortunately from the brand's perspective (Visa, Mastercard, etc.) it doesn't matter which of your product is using their channel to process payments, if the business is involved in doing something shady, the whole company will be flagged. If you already passed KYC 12 years ago, but your business _today_ won't pass KYC if you were to apply again, then it's a matter of time until you get kicked out.
Maybe you should focus on making your business run in the ethical clear first. You’re not getting any sympathy from me that your unethical practices got you cut off from financing.
I was using odesk.com at the time and they basically banned me from interacting with the deva.
Attribute things to incompetence before malice and all that, especially when attributing it to malice requires thinking they made a fairly odd decision to outright lie to customers about why you are ceasing doing business with them.
> (poorly) made up excuse to ban undesirable users.
I suppose I'm not interested in debating the definition of malice as it relates to actions by a large corporation...
This sounds more like an excuse from Paypal, who I fear talking bad about in case they decide to ban me too :P
This sounds so similar to all other
large tech companies, specially Google. Somewhere along the line all these tech companies lost user focus.
The account rep is just a marketing vector for Google to their paying customers.
* Cody Don on YouTube teaches the masses about science and regularly gets banned. His videos are rated G to PG. Despite millions of viewers and dollars of Revenue, there is nobody he can call.
* Uber charged $1500 to my debut card a few months ago. There's literally nobody you can call about it.
* Lose your Instagram/Twitter/Gmail? Too bad, because it's free, you're treated as cattle.
* Oh then there's the paying customers too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17431609
Your bank. You dispute the charge. Uber can deal with your bank. It doesn't matter it was a debit card. It means you're missing the money immediately, but doesn't stop you from disputing.
I would say, sending uber an email would work, or calling their number (which, they actually do - if you lost a phone in an uber, they have a number which lets you call them to get the contact details of the driver of the car you were in).
So it only applies to chargebacks of transactions you've previously authorized, not for fraudulent unauthorized charges.
If I took an Uber (or attempted to take an Uber) and I had a dispute with them about payment = attempt to work it out with Uber first.
If I didn't take an Uber at all = contact bank.
Is the convenience of an app so important to you that you're willing to deal with this nonsense?
Wait until Uber is the only option for a ride across town. Now what?
If you are a driver, a ban seems more permanent, but it's not like they really identify riders.
Your bank. You call your bank.
Always pay with a credit card, it's much easier to reverse this kind of stuff versus a debit card. There is literally no good reason to ever use a debit card.
A good reason would be if you don't have credit cards because you have serious problems controlling your spending and you're at a place where you can't pay with cash, such as an unmanned gas station, payment terminal, on a plane, a cash-less business, etc.
I agree with the overall point, either use cash or use credit. Debit only if cash and credit aren't available.
Any reason this couldn't work? Does it exist already?
You mean a regular bank transaction card? Is that not something that exists in the US?
I always find the American reliance on credit cards somewhat bizarre. Not having an alternative would explain it, I guess.
The problem with debit cards is because certain transactions aren't instant in the US if there's fraud on your debit card at just the right time then your rent check can bounce, your external transfers are returned, etc, and all that stuff comes with fees and headaches.
Credit cards also come with rewards whereas rewards on debit cards are rare and not as good if they exist. Credit cards usually have auxiliary benefits like (depending on the card) return protection, purchase protection, extended warranty, travel insurance, and more, whereas debit cards have nothing of the sort. THere's no interest due on credit cards if you pay your bill in full every month.
The problem with credit cards is, of course, you have the ability to spend more money than you have, and you can dig yourself into a hole if you don't use that power responsibly.
Bank transaction cards in Netherland, presumably all of Europe, and I would hope the rest of the world, authorise the transaction in a reasonably secure way between you and your bank, and the merchant only gets the money.
 The main insecure part is that keys are short, because they need to be memorised. But with modern automatically-blocking chip cards, there's no way to brute-force that as far as I'm aware.
What is confusing you is probably that European banks push 3D Secure really hard, so most online transactions are further verified, and that chip&pin cards and online readers are prevalent - the same thing Americans call “Apple Pay is supported”.
All that works on debit OR credit cards.
* don't have the credit card like information like card number, verification number or CVC code.
* They are directly linked to a bank account like you described.
* They have the account number (IBAN) printed on them. Knowledge of that number doesn't get you closer to the money in the account, though.
* To actually use them on an ATM or at a POS, you usually use chip and pin. In the POS case, the POS randomly chooses between PIN and your hand written signature as proof of ownership.
* You can't directly pay with them online, though (ignoring extra features some variants have).
* To pay online if you only have one of those cards, you usually pay by wire transfer using your account number, the pin number from above and a tan (a single use number created for this transaction only). Money reaches the recipient between a few minutes and a day later.
* Practically everyone with a bank account has such a card.
The 2FA used to be done with one-time TAN numbers on paper, but many banks switched to a special device that generates these numbers on the fly based on your account, the amount transferred and some random number, and in recent years many banks are switching to a mobile app for dedication. But authorisation always happens through some form of 2FA between you and the bank, and never relies on sending any kind of sensitive information (like credit card numbers) to third parties (merchant, PayPal, whatever).
Sadly, iDeal is only supported by Dutch banks and Dutch merchants (and international merchants that care about the Dutch market, like Steam). I really wish there was something like this that was internationally supported. Relying on sharing credit card numbers, seems really backwards and terribly insecure. Well, it is terribly insecure, as evidenced by all the panic when a company leaks a million credit card numbers. You never get that kind of panic when someone leaks a million account numbers, because in a secure system, that's simply not enough to get any money out of that account.
People like using credit cards (or charge cards, like some Amexes) to buffer transactions between the bank and the merchant, so if the merchant screws up there is time to resolve the issue before the credit bill comes due.
If a merchant screws up with your debit card, or it gets skimmed/stolen, the only limit to abuse is how much money is in your checking account. If you just got a direct deposit from your employer and are expecting your rent payment to pull from that account today, but your account was drained because your debit card got skimmed at a gas station... not much you can do.
Lets you generate new debit card numbers with hard limits on the amount the card can spend. I really like them for tracking repeating payments.
If you have serious problems controlling your spending, might as well spend someone else's money that you can discharge, versus just have no money in your checking account all the time.
(And, I have money in other accounts for emergencies.)
Credit cards are also subject to holds.
It might be convenient today, but it's like driving around without your seat belt on. It might allow you to enter and exit the vehicle quicker, but that's not really the point.
The bank that offers me 0.2% more interest isn't worth it because their customer service is reprehensible garbage.
When something goes wrong my good bank - First Direct - are going to answer in 2-3 rings, and they're going to fix it, their founding philosophy (I happen to know some of those founders by chance) is that customers must feel "totally taken care of", if the customer wants a £2M mortgage at 2am on a Sunday, then you can't tell them "Oh I'm sorry the mortgages team only works 9-5". I have never come off a call to them thinking they should have done more or done it faster, on the contrary I'm often surprised how effective they were able to be.
Everything about this approach can be replicated. If every bad bank loses its customers we all get better banks.
Unless you're trying to get out cash from an ATM, or make any other cash-advance-like purchase. Then there's a really good reason to use a debit card instead of a credit card. It's the only time I use my debit card.
What is a debit card exactly in the US? I'm familiar with US-style credit cards, and find them horrible, expensive and insecure. I normally pay simply with my bank card, and online I prefer to with through iDeal bank transfer. Unfortunately that's not supported internationally, so I have a credit card only for international online payments. I would not own a credit card otherwise.
A credit card is different. If a transaction is submitted for reversal within the allotted time period, the charges are simply reversed.
In the case of a fraudulent debit transaction that gets disputed, your bank has to file a claim with the other bank, and somebody (possibly other than the merchant) is taking a loss. Banks don't like that. Credit card reversals mostly result in the merchants taking the loss, and the banks will usually side with a consumer.
One source: https://monzo.com/blog/2018/08/08/better-credit-score/ , a bank’s blog, but I’ve seen it in other places. Never from the horse’s mouth, though.
As far as I can tell mortgages are dependent on you having OK credit, not good credit. You don't seem to get better rates dependent on your credit score.
Credit card rates are irrelevant, you shouldn't be carrying a balance.
What else do you really need a credit score for?
If only he sold out to NBC, PBS, Disney, or a Viacom company, then he could do whatever he wants and never be banned. ;)
The reason their is very little customer service in SV is due to fact that it is extremely expensive to provide customer service...
Why build products for customers if you aren't going to provide service to them, oh wait, it's because it's not as profitable.
And here I thought small claims court was a thing in the US as well
I am not a lawyer, but I have sued out-of-state companies in my home jurisdiction.
Just customers, no, probably not.
Contractors? Yes. Especially contractors that are performing services there.
If you're in the U.S., I would think your state's Attorney General. It's potentially either theft or fraud, I would think.
Or if your A.G. won't pursue it, go after Uber in small-claims court. Not only are you likely to recoup your lost money, but you'd cause them some pain and/or lawyer fees.
Every Friday go online and withdraw all-but-the-necessary £€$$ to your bank account (transfer wire or via card number). I do get some revenue via PayPal, and the very same day (or the next) I 'download' comes it to my bank account (connected to PayPal via card) and IMMEDIATELY is shipped to another account that has all the controls to make money (relatively) unmovable.
I perceive PayPal as my wallet. I do keep 'some' money in it but I keep the motherload away 'layers' deep.
My money flow diagram, in the back end, includes "tax", "expenses", and "vault" (alarm Scrooge McDuck) accounts.
I see PayPal as the envelope that I am given the cash in. It doesn't stay there for more than 24-48h.
Edit: someone below mentioned they do spam.. if e.g. USA authorities has alerted them about doing shady things, PayPal would also receive a gag order with it to a) freeze their $$$$ and b) gag them. If I was Niteo I would get my pencils sharpened and wake up my lawyers.
PayPal does have a feature they don't advertise named Auto Sweep, which withdraws any balance in your account each day. You need to contact support to enable it.
Giving PayPal an interest free loan and control over you balances rather than sweeping them into a (potentially interest bearing) account controlled by you is one example of this.
Another is having a second account at a different bank that you sweep money from the first one. That second bank account should be set up to reject automated ACH withdrawals so that you can push money into it but PayPal, your payroll company, your bill payers, or even other companies that ACH payments to you cannot withdraw from your account without your permission.
This is a thing? How do you do this?
the 3rd parties I'm referring to are things like work marketplaces like upwork, even gift cards or undeposited checks.
The first line ("Literally NO ONE wrote the below:") introduces a hot take.
> The first sentence is throwing me off so much
I didn't go to check because the mystery is more intriguing, but if the OOP's username is NO ONE, then maybe NO ONE literally did write that?
Like PayPal, a bank also will not tell you why it has frozen your account (to avoid ripping off others in a crime ring). PayPal (like banks) give you an opportunity to fight it, but like banks they can't simply let you have the money if it is frozen.
Also, working in banking - banks and financial institutions will go out of their way to avoid false positives but do still need to remain compliant.
At least, that's how I understand the banking situation in Netherland, which seems about as reasonable as you can get. American companies do seem to be much more likely to play police.
Not the case. They're obliged to freeze the account when they suspect suspicious activity, and then submit a SAR if it is proven to be suspicioue. Freezing the acct is part of the investigation, and they usually now use automated tools to do so.
They're obliged to work every alert generated and unfreeze if the activity is proved to be legitimate.
How many lawyers do you think a bank will have to retain to deal with the flood of preliminary injunctions they would have to deal with if they locked accounts at will?
If something bounces, then I will handle it within 24h. Again, this is the setup that covers my needs. A different organizations with different needs should have different process/controls to match their liquidity/easy-to-access-cash needs.
You probably want this as a generic fail safe for any account that you disclose the account an routing number to an outside entity.
I'm not an expert on this, but I believe there are ways to set up business accounts where money can't be taken out in that way, at least not by the standard electronic means. You can also manage accounts in such a way as that there's no money to take out, although that does not necessarily prevent the account from going into the negative. Checking accounts can go into significant negative balances if the bank chooses to allow it.
As to prevent the overdraft, just ask the bank to NOT have overdraft capacity on your account(s).
Edit: I'm replying to a really low odds scenario, where:
1. You auto sweep all money out of paypal
2. You regularly empty the checking account it sends to
You have at risk maybe $1000-$2000 in the chequing + less than $100 in fees.
For something vanishingly unlikely to happen. The risk seems rather low compared to the exposure.
I mostly use stripe and have PayPal as a backup. Never had a problem with either, and if I did have a problem with one the amounts are fairly low. (Probably more of an amount risk with stripe as they take longer to sweep out the money. But I don't think they freeze as often)
This speaks about keeping 7 accounts: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=auzLhKvsxnQ
There is a Tom Ferry (real estate guy but has some sound tips) also has on a video a VERY good flow diagram on how to distribute money in different buckets/accounts. Apologies but I couldn't find it on my phone.
I was "inspired" by the above and once I organized my accounts/flows and stopped using "single account for all" my life became so much simpler. And of course PayPal wallet is not a permanent parking space for £€¥$.
It is an interesting angle to try a civil suit for.
Overdraft is a loan. Would you get a loan with insane interest rate and fees just to get a payment go through? Not me.
Anyway, long story short. Someone managed to access my paypal and request a sum of money around roughly $40. That account had about $38 in it at the time. Paypal flagged the transaction as fraudulent, stored the money 'in my paypal account' instead of sending it to the requester, and froze my account. But this overdrew my bank account by roughly $2. Needless to say, 2-3 years of late fees added up to a substantial amount of money - two separate accounts - one for about $280 that I owed the bank and another that was about $350 that i owed to their 'overdraft' company. I didn't find out about either until they were about 2-3 years old and in collections.
I realize what I'm explaining is totally my own fault for not monitoring that account and keeping it up to date, but if paypal would have either redeposited that money into my account or sent some emails, instead of freezing the assets in a holding account, I could have avoided that.
In either event, that left a bitter taste in my mouth, and i severed all ties with paypal and that old account at that point.
I had to explain this multiple times to different government and military agencies throughout my career - it still comes up on background investigations.
We never had any issues, but we were very vigilant about transferring funds out of PayPal every few days just in case. We did finally stop using them, probably about 2009 or 2010, when stories like OP's started to become widespread.
For us, having them "hold" our funds for 6 months or cancelling our account would have bankrupted us. The hotel wants to be paid on Monday after the event. Vendors need to be paid within 30 days. Things like that would have been impossible for us to do if they decided to sit on the money or can us. We were a volunteer fan convention; we didn't have the financial cushion to withstand something like that.
Not to mention the fees were higher than a standard merchant account. We finally did switch to a merchant account through Elavon and, after I left, I think they switched to Stripe. Either way, they don't accept PayPal now because the financial risk to them that could result from PayPal freezing or canceling the funds is significant.
Regardless, I would not recommend any business accept PayPal unless you are large enough to get their attention. There are far too many stories out there like OP's, of individuals, as well as small and medium sized businesses, getting absolutely hosed by some automated algorithm at PayPal and having zero recourse to even find out what happened. Customer "service" is nonexistent there. In my opinion, the only thing PayPal is good for is sending money between people.
Short of filing a lawsuit, and you probably can't even do that because they now have an arbitration agreement in their terms.
Reasons: No risk of credit card info misuse (by vendor), I only need username and password and I get certainly at least some kind of receipt for accounting.
It's a shame virtual cards never got more traction through the CC industry. For those who aren't familiar, some banks/cards offer you a tool that let's you set an arbitrary spend and expiration date (+2-12 months usually) and then generate a credit card number (with CVC) with those attributes (Bank of America branded theirs "SafeShop" for one example). Since it's a fully backed card number it'll transparently work on any site a normal CC would, but it cannot be charged more then the small limit (so you can set it just to the checkout price of one item and it's done), it can be trivially cancelled at will (useful for fighting dark pattern subscription services), etc (some of them can bind to merchant too). It's very effective for preventing misuse from online purchases. However for whatever reason it never seems to have spread or evolved really. BoA never added it to their mobile app for example, which seems like the most logical place, but rather kept it as a little Flash tool tucked away in their website. Plenty of banks do not offer it at all, and it never got much PR. It is more work to use and while that could have been reduced through better UIs (mobile again could really help there) it would always have been somewhat more work.
Maybe options like Apple Pay/Google Pay will ultimately fill that role, since they're essentially an automated version of the above (tolkenized per-purchase card numbers). It'd be nice if the industry would work harder though on some standards for the hardware ecosystem needed.
Despite what the banks claim, they usually will NOT prevent recurring payments from being honored. Even if you don't have enough money in your account. (The bank will just collect it from you)
I used to use a service called Entropay, which would actually let you pre-pay money into a disposable virtual credit card. But banks would never let you do that, because it would undermine their own system.
90% of the problems that I have had over the last ten years have not been with credit card info being stolen, but with misleading or outright fraudulent behavior by merchants, and BoA virtual credit cards have all of the exact same problems as real credit cards and will do nothing to protect you.
You will still have to always keep an eye out that 90 days later you aren't charged again for the same thing. And you are still on the hook for charges made by the merchant you paid, and it is up to you to dispute any charges through the same process as with a regular credit card.
What I want, is to give a merchant a credit card number, pre load that number with $30, have them charge it, and then be completely done with it. This especially makes sense for low stakes low cost recurring monthly payments. I should just be able to stop paying a $5/month fax service that I never use, and have them terminate my service. Banks would never let you do that. Services that used to let you do that have been mostly shut down.
I understand that I may be technically agreeing to pay each month with recurring payments, but the onus should be on the provider to stop servicing me if I cannot come up with the money. The system that we have today for recurring payments makes no sense.
I simply want to be in control of how much money gets taken from me. It is the same reason I take bills out of my wallet to pay a clerk at a store, and do not simply hand them my wallet and ask them to take the money out. I don't care if I can call the bank and dispute things with them, I want to be the one to dole out the money for the transaction.
And I haven't tested this, but apparently if some scummy vpn service you did a 30 day trial with a few months ago claims you owe them, and you miss the window to dispute it, or the bank sides with the merchant, the bank is obligated to go after your money from other accounts.
Privacy.com offers this service, but you have to pay from your bank account.
All I want, is the digital equivalent of a personal check.
A one time promise to pay money. If the merchant has a dispute with me, or thinks I owe them more money, they are free to sue me.
If my utility company wants automatic recurring payments, I have to sign paperwork which makes it very clear that I am authorizing recurring bank transfers.
The system we have now makes no sense at all.
They block charges over the limit.
You can "turn off" a card after you use it.
They have "single use" cards that turn off automatically two minutes after the first charge.
You can set the spending limit on single use cards or for non-single use cards on a per month basis or per year basis.
You can use any billing name and address with the merchant.
the minor annoyance for recurring payments is totally worth not having to actively be on guard for random people withdrawing from my account.
why is this so hard? i suppose its because of some perverse incentives that I dont understand.
For something small or temporary, I might overlook it. For something that has direct access to my bank account, no go. They need to accept some liability if they want that level of access to my financial life.
To be fair, Paypal has an arbitration agreement too. But, if you're using Paypal as justification for your own policies, that's not exactly a strong starting position.
Have a look at Revolut (however, you need a monthly subscription to use disposable virtual cards).
I also social engineered my way in to my own account via a brand new Twitter account, so ... beware.
You are not responsible for card-not-present fraud (without 3D Secure). You can dispute any fraudulent charge with your bank, and I’d bet good money the bank has actually better customer service in that regard compared to PayPal.
A prime example was when I subscribed to NYTimes, and a few months later wanted to cancel. The only way to cancel was to make a phone call, navigate a phone tree, and wait for an agent. That was absurd, not only because I'm international and find it less convenient to call a US number... but particularly because I signed up and created the subscription online. NYT knew what they were doing by making it difficult for people to cancel.
With PayPal in between, I was able to easily just terminate the agreement. NYT could no longer suck money out of my card.
NYT has since upgraded to allow managing your subscription online, including upgrade/downgrade/cancellation.
The last time I had to deal with card fraud, my bank was extremely reasonable to work with and didn't hesitate at all when disputing the charges. But the process can still be fairly annoying. Having to wait for the card to be replaced, having to move any auto billpay using that card to another, etc.
With very few exceptions, if the merchant isn't using a decent external payment platform, you might as well be posting your credit card information on Hacker News. I'd much rather run my card information through PayPal if that is the only option other than entering card information on the merchants dodgy website.
Most banks can be decent to deal with, and one can certainly take steps to mitigate the impact of it when it does happen (Like not using your debt card for purchases, ever. Using a different credit card for bill payments vs online purchases vs offline purchases, etc.) But I can understand why people would prefer to avoid card fraud when they have the option to do so.
I worked for a fraud detection company in the UK that existed precisely because chargebacks work so well, here. So this is definitely news to me.
Don't get me wrong, sometimes the networks rules are stronger than the laws for other reasons. Last I checked in the US the customer was legally out $50 in case of fraud, but all networks reduced it to zero figuring if they were already out potentially a large sum of money they may as well eat the last $50 too for goodwill reasons.
I'm not quite sure what pattern the agent recognized, but she sure didn't like it and they weren't going to put up with it for a second. I'm not sure why it wouldn't be in their interest to be this vigilant globally...
I am not surprised. You have obviously never stood in Ethiopia or wherever and have gotten a call from your bank: " This is the fraud department, unfortunately we have to block your card but we send you a new one".
Trick question: How many CC do you carry at a given time?
Hint: based from experience it should be at LEAST 3.
If the bank is bad it’s one thing but then the solution is to choose a better bank, not hack around the problem with a (shady) middleman like PayPal.
When I was abroad one guy was enjoying a decent McDonalds meal in the states with a cloned card.
It's a pain in the butt when it happens.
International consumer finance is a mess. Not everybody who shops on the Internet is a US citizen with a credit card account in a first-rate bank. There are other options.
I got all the money they'd charged back but it was still a stressful time because I didn't have any other card at the time.
For me, Paypal looks disgusting. Like it's stuck in 2002. I'd much rather buy if there's Apple Pay via Safari or Gumroad or literally anything else.
PayPal has done the world a favour by banning them.
It matters very little how despicable the company is, monetary services must not hold opinions unless explicitly told one by a local government.
For example, I don't want my bank to provide services to organised crime because I both feel that would be morally wrong and I think it'd open the bank's staff to influences that aren't in the best interests of other customers.
Also, your argument isn't with PayPal; it's with the entire FS industry.
A better example might be highly religious community not wanting their bank to do business with companies focused on the gay and lesbian community.
This is a good example because: it is not illegal for a company to cater to the gay and lesbian community, it is not illegal to discriminate against gay and lesbian people in many states, and there are communities that would dislike this sort of company.
Either way, I gave the example of organised crime not in an attempt for people to take it as a literal suggestion of equivalence but to argue against the idea that a financial institution has no place being choosey about its customers.
That sounds like a very interesting idea, but how about this one?
> "You must follow PayPal's terms and conditions or should expect to have your account terminated"
Because that's how every payment processor in existence works. Don't like it? Use bitcoin.
For one example, see American Express's Merchant Operating Guide
See section 10.2 Prohibited Merchants. There's a whole list of them. Here's a select few:
Multi-level Pyramid Sales, Prostitution, Payday Lenders, Timeshares, Gambling, Virtual Currency, Escort Services and Non-Licensed Massage Parlors, Mortgage Payments.
> The most interesting thing is that we’ve moved away from PayPal in the last two years and have only been receiving some minor payments and paying for a few online services.
We've stopped using PayPal for our SaaS business a few years ago.
Lots of people would simply think "It won't happen to me" and move on. But this is just another example that if it can happen to people using Paypal for years, it can happen to you too. It's better to offer other payment channels to customers so you can diversify. And if possible, move away from Paypal entirely.
>Providing file sharing services or access to newsgroups
Activities Requiring Approval
> Providing file sharing services or access to newsgroups;
Looks like he didn't seek approval and got flagged for it.