Slashdot Mirror
PayPal Settles NY Probe, But Faces Others
Coneasfast writes "PayPal, which is owned by eBay, has admitted misleading shoppers into believing it offered credit-card-style protection and has agreed to pay $150,000 to settle charges. There are many sites out there which are dedicated to the problems of paypal, including PayPalSucks and PaypalWarning."
Reader ipandithurts links to this related Reuters story, pointing out that the New York investigation isn't the only PalPal probe: "PayPal's practice of suspending users accounts while investigating suspicious transactions continues to be review by the FTC. While the rate of fraudulent PayPal transactions is less than one-half of one percent, the volume of more than $12.2 billion last year keeps Paypal caught in the middle of many disputes."
Unfortunately, if anything goes wrong, you are automatically guilty until proven innocent.
I have been using paypal for a number of years and only had one issue with them. A guy lost a part for a record player I sold him, then tried to demand his money back claiming I never sent the part with the item ( i did ). He simply reversed charges on his cc and paypal did the same to me, tanking my account to -$1200. I had over 100 transactions with paypal -- this guy?? 0! and I was the one who was guilty.
Probably the best one I've encountered is Neteller. Especially if you're planning on using this to sell stuff, Neteller is much better than Paypal (weekly settlements of the amount in your account in excess of the pre-set "float" are done via check sent through FedEx, for instance).
I'll be deploying Neteller soon for taking online payments.
Tell me about it! A few days ago I bought about $100 worth of ink cartridges, in several lots of $20 (all from the same seller, the same night). But when they wouldn't ship the items OR issue me a refund, I went to launch a fraud complaint on EBay.
Guess what? The minimum purchase for filing a fraud complaint is $25! So they didn't do anything at all! It shows that if you want to scam on EBay, just do it in chunks less than $25.
EBay is a dishonest, crooked business
I really dislike PayPal's policies. As a seller there is no protection against digital goods. I sold something for $250 to someone. Then several days later I get an e-mail from PayPal stateing it was a stolen account and they take the funds out of my account. As a seller I have no way of knowing the account is stolen or not. The owner of the account and PayPal should be held reliable for stolen accounts. Not me as the seller.
The reason that so many seem to be confused about PayPal not being a bank is because so few people actually understand what a bank really is, or why they are regulated. Most people seem to believe that you give the bank your money, the bank puts it in a vault someplace, and when you want it back, they take it back out of the vault and give it to you. This is essentially what PayPal does, but it is not at all what a bank does. The reason that Paypal is not a bank, and not covered under current banking laws is two-fold.
Current banking laws, the world over, are generally the result of banking and savings and loan crashes and failures. These resulted in many people losing all or part of the money they had invested in the bank. The way that a bank works is that you deposit your money into an account. The bank then loans your money to someone else. When that person repays thier loan, the bank takes a portion of the interest that person paid (her cost for getting the loan) and gives a portion to you as an interest payment on your account. [Non-interest bearing or monthly fee accounts being a way for you to let them use your money for free is an entirely different rant.] Now while they are loaning out your money, you may want to actually use it to buy something. So banks use a pot of un-loaned money to give you back what you deposited when you request it. It should be obvious that there are [primarily] two glaring problems with this set-up. First, if the bank makes a loan to someone who doesn't pay it back, and the person who's money they loaned out wants to withdraw it, the bank has to get that money from the pot of un-loaned money and pay it back later from the banks portion of the interest payments from other loans. If many, many people fail to pay back thier loans this creates a major squeeze on that pot of un-loaned money, and it could run out. The second problem occurs if the first has happened, or is even rumored to possibly be happening. Since the pot of un-loaned money must be significantly smaller than the total deposits for the bank to actually make a profit, and it is in the banks best interest to keep that amount as small as possible (in other words, as much money loaned out and earning interest as possible), situations have happened where people wanted thier money, and the bank didn't actually have that much on hand. This led to runs on banks, and bank failures, and lots of people losing money.
Thus we have banking laws. Almost all banking regulations deal with how large the pot of un-loaned money has to be that a bank is required to keep, with how a bank decides who to loan money to, and how much risk they are allowed to take, or with reporting procedures to make sure that the banks are complying with the above criteria.
Since PayPal never loans money, and all money that is listed in your account is actually on hand for them to pay you at any point, they fall outside almost all of the regulations that banks must follow.
The other thing that people seem to beleive, which boggles my mind, is that banks have regulations against freezing your account if they think there is suspicious activity on the account. In fact, there are no laws or regulations that say they have to give your money back in a specific time period. If they think that there is suspicious or criminal activity they can, and in some cases are required by law to freeze your account and sometimes even confiscate your money. [Al-qaeda, terrorist fund-raising organizations, drug cartels, human trafficing, other fraud, etc.] If they decide to do this, you have no recourse other than to sue them. Exactly the same as PayPal. (This is particularly U.S. centric, since banking laws vary considerably around the world.)
In fact, if PayPal were to be placed under banking laws, the only impact that would have on them is a tremendously higher burden of federal paperwork. As long as they do not make loans, almost none of the other regulations would af
"Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar