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.
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.)
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
When Paypal europe moved to Luxembourg last year, due to EU regulations it had to become subject to banking rules. More information here: http://www.finextra.com/fullstory.asp?id=16927 I don't think it's a bank outside europe though.
"If successful, eBay will roll it out to other markets." Of course they'll be successful, all other modes of payment are barred!
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
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.