Slashdot Mirror
eBay Australia Makes PayPal Mandatory
An anonymous reader writes "Australian press are reporting that eBay is using Australia as a guinea pig to trial a new policy where all other modes of payment are barred except for PayPal. If successful, eBay will roll it out to other markets."
Well, I guess its definitely time to look for an alternative, and pull my highly rated account from ebay :(
I refuse to use paypal due to having bad experiences with it in the past.
In Australia i'd say paypal for paying for ebay auctions is hardly use AT ALL since in Australia its far easier and quicker and cheaper to pay using direct deposit with netbanking. That is THE standard pay to pay here. Why use a middle man? And now to be FORCED to use one? I don't think so.
You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
I refuse to use Paypal because I am not convinced it is covered by banking regulations. These may not be perfect (understatement of year to date) but are surely better than nothing. Can anybody explain to me in what way entrusting funds to Paypal offers any real and accessible legal protection against fraud?
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
From a sellers perspective I can see the desire to take other forms of payment, but as a buyer there is massive appeal for the use of PayPal. With how its integrated into eBay it makes conflict resolution much simpler and gives you a means of tracking and proving receipt of funds.
The only thing I would want to see added to the service is an escrow option. But the idea of sending a wire transfer, check or money order to some unknown entity on the internet sounds like a bad idea.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Ebay's success comes because it's a moderator - a broker in a sale. It connects two parties together, and nothing more. When it does that, Ebay is golden. It's UI is nice, it's search feature generally works, and that's why it's a multi-billion dollar corp.
But if they cram paypal down my throat, I'll swallow something else. I'm already at the point where Ebay is my LAST resort, since their ratings have been so thoroughly gamed I have no idea who I'm really dealing with, anymore.
Forcing paypal? No way. I refuse. What's the next halfway decent auction house? Truthfully, I've already moved much of my online purchasing to froogle.com....
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
If successful, eBay will roll it out to other markets.
If they roll it out in the EU, this could fall foul of competition laws; the credit card companies/banks could presumably complain of being shut out, given Ebay's near total dominance.
(Obvious the same could apply in other countries, but the EU currently seems keenest on actually enforcing competition laws.)
If its mandatory, make it free (for use on payment for ebay items, charging for other uses is OK). How can they justify a double charge?
Nope. If it were a bank, the merchant would pay for the loss or the bank will bear it.
As banking laws go, once the money is in your account, nobody (except by court order) can debit your account except you.
Nobody.
Similarly, they can't suddenly block access to your account without informing you in writing.
PayPal OTOH can debit your account and drain it fully and then refuse to explain why plus put you in call waiting.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
"If successful, eBay will roll it out to other markets." Of course they'll be successful, all other modes of payment are barred!
Not exactly. When a credit card holder disputes a debit, the bank contacts the merchant first and asks him to verify the debit he made. It also gives the merchant details about who disputed what, etc, plus a specific time.
Within the time, if the merchant cannot produce proof, the cardholder's complaint is sustained.
At NO time has the bank the legal authority to debit or even block access to the funds in merchant's account.
This is different from paypal, which is under no obligation to contact you, can and will block your account, and withdraw funds from it without due process.
And that is why paypal is different from a bank.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
In the UK (3x as many people as Australia) I got an email to say that Paypal *must* be offered as a payment option, not that it must be the only payment option. So I imagine they are testing different policies in different smaller markets. It makes sense to try to streamline it and get a few more % of each sale - eBay is still complicated compared to Amazon's sales process and Amazon seem to get away with taking almost 10%.
Matthew @ Bytemark Hosting
blam! the sound of eBay shooting itself in the foot.
.au that they will not dare make the same change to .com .co.uk etc.
as a buyer paypal has some good points - limited protection, traceability, etc.
but as a seller it sucks big time as just adds another set of fees to your sale.
eBay nicks nearly 5-10% of the sale price including paypal.
if they made paypal free and just part of the eBay service then there might not be so many arguments, but to enforce it and then make additional money is such a blatent money grab that this will backfire big time.
buyers may like it, but if there are no sellers then there will be no buyers. it will be interested to watch how the number of items for sale changes in ebay.au after this is enforced. anybody know how we can plot a graph of items for sale vs. date to track the impact?
I'm guessing that there will be such a negative impact in
from eBays point of view they are being pressurized to add more traceability into their system by law enforcement worried about fraud and fencing - so they are really between a rock and a hard place here.
one thing is certain - behind every internet giant is a number if "would bes" who will seize every opportunity to steal business, so eBay will have to tread carefully here.
Doesn't eBay -own- PayPal...?!?
Well, forcing your customers to use your subsidiary company (or any supplier, for that matter) sounds pretty anti-competitive to me... and - if the Aussie comtetition watchdog barks loudly enough, eBay may have to play fair again.
I'm sure credit card vendors will scream "Fowl!" soon...
I have found some good reviews of the following, and they all look cheaper than ebay.
http://www.specialistauctions.com/
http://www.52marketplace.com/
http://www.cqout.com/
http://www.ebid.net/
http://www.tazbar.com/
http://www.oneway-uk.com/
http://www.avabid.com/
I have only had a quick look at each, http://www.ebid.net/ seems to have the most comprehensive items list from a buyer's point of view
Ebay is pretty much THE auction site on the net, and they own paypal. this sounds like leveraging a monopoly in one market to effect an advantage in an unrelated market and anti-competitive behaviour to me.
the EU has given microsoft plenty of shit over the years for anti-competitive behaviour, it will be interesting to see if/what kind of flack ebay attracts over this.
How is this NOT a violation of the trade practices act?
Anyone know the right way to get the ACCC to investigate this?
Oh you meant ones where you can sell real goods? Damn...
Not true in the US.
:(
Here's a US Treasury Dept. link from a comment I recently modded Informative:
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/currency/legal-tender.shtml
I cannot find the comment now, Slashdot's search function is too under-powered
As I discovered to my cost recently, if you accept PayPal payment you are effectively also accepting Credit Card payments (via PayPal). Unless your sale qualifies for seller protection (mine arbitrarily didn't, and unless you check it's not easy to realise you're not covered), then you are totally open to something called 'chargeback'.
Chargeback is basically fraud protection - if someone's credit card is stolen they can recover any lost money. But where do you think this money comes from ? From the credit card issuing company ? From PayPal ? Nope - the fraudulent transactions are reversed, so the person who originally received payment ends up footing the loss. That's maybe all well and good when you are talking about large companies and small levels of fraud, but now with eBay we are talking about literally millions of small time sellers, and probably hundreds of thousands of fraudulent transactions.
What this means is that if you accept PayPal payment, unless you are very careful about being 'protected' (and even then, who knows how far that protection covers you) you will be totally liable for any credit card fraud that transpires when someone purchases from you. The chargeback can (and does) occur MONTHS after the original transaction.
I strongly advise everyone NOT to accept PayPal payments at all. If eBay is forcing PayPal onto sellers, then I recommend ditching eBay - the risk of fraud is too big. You might as well leave your items on the street with an honesty box.
my god you people miss the mark by a long shot. the merchant is the CC company providing the funds.
... but the *merchant* is ALWAYS you.
No. Sorry. You are the one way off the mark.
As someone who has owned a business I can assure you, the merchant is the *business owner*. The other party is typically called a "bank", "merchant bank", "merchant account provider", "acquiring bank", or "acquirer"
Now, from the "merchant account providers" point of view...
"In the Visa and Mastercard rules, the merchant's processing bank [merchant account provider] is 100% responsible for all the transactions that the merchant performs. This can leave the provider open to millions of dollars of potential losses if the merchant operates in an illegal or risky manner and generates many chargebacks. The providers pass this cost on to the merchant, but if the merchant is fraudulent or simply does not have the money, the provider must pay all the costs to make the card holder whole."
Which is probably what you are talking about. So, Yes, its absolutely true that THEY (the merchant account providers) are liable for any fraudulent charges, and THEY must cover it. If you, as a cardholder phone Visa and ask who pays if your card is stolen, they'll just tell you 'not you'. If you persist they'll tell you that (according to PCI DSS [Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard]) the cost is borne by the bank providing the merchant account ["merchant account provider"].
However, as it says in the above quote, while they are responsible, they *invariably* try to recoup that cost, plus fees, plus fines, from the merchant (that would be YOU). They only get stuck holding the bag and taking a loss, if they CAN'T get the money from you...and that only happens if you're insolvent, or you've fled the country, or something equally drastic. If you are an upstanding reputable business in good standing, they WILL pass that cost on to you, and you WILL pay.
So as far as your card issuer or VISA is concerned yes, the liability rests with the merchant account provider. But you're daft if you don't think they in turn pass that liability to you via your 'merchant account' agreement/contract, and collect on it vigorously.
Look it up.
It seems that with this, and the Amazon news from a few days ago, some of the companies that experienced rapid growth during the first .com bubble by offering what the customer wants vs the old model of trying to control the market are now switching to the old model. They control enough of the market now that it probably seems safe to their board to do this, but they are forgetting how rapidly they themselves were able to grab market share, and seem to be missing the fact that if someone new moves into the space they are vacating, the market share that the new company takes will come almost entirely from their customer base. They should also keep in mind that it won't necessarily be a startup that moves into their space; Google, Yahoo and Microsoft are all contenders that could jump in and cause a massive shift in the market almost immediately.