Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Nixes PayPal's Forced Robocalls Plan

Posted by Soulskill on from the don't-call-us,-we'll-call-you dept.

jfruh writes: As part of a new user agreement created in preparation for its spinoff from eBay as an independent company, PayPal told users that the only way to avoid advertising robocalls from PayPal and its 'partners' was to stop using the service. This caused something of a firestorm, and now the FCC is saying the policy may violate Federal law, which requires an explicit opt-in to receive such messages.

122 comments

  1. Oh. by HideyoshiJP · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I hadn't bothered reading the new terms of service. Had I read about this before this FCC news, I would have cancelled. They've always been a little shady anyway, always wanting to ride that line between a service and a bank, while not wanting to fall into bank regulations.

    1. Re:Oh. by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They've always been a little shady anyway, always wanting to ride that line between a service and a bank, while not wanting to fall into bank regulations.

      Although eBay/PayPal appeared to be one company, they were separate business entities inside the company. I worked help desk for them prior to the Great Recession. Any hardware with an asset tag and licensed software got separated for either eBay or PayPal, as PayPal fell under the banking regulations and played by a different set of rules than eBay. If you were employed on the PayPal side, your credit record had to be in excellent shape or have your employment terminated. Just like working at a bank.

    2. Re:Oh. by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      as PayPal fell under the banking regulations and played by a different set of rules than eBay. If you were employed on the PayPal side, your credit record had to be in excellent shape or have your employment terminated. Just like working at a bank.

      Then how is it that PayPal staunchly says "we're not a bank", and has never operated under any banking regulations?

      What you're saying doesn't in any way match what they've been saying publicly.

      I'm having a hard time believing that internally PayPal even admits it's like a bank considering how loudly that they say outside of the company that they're not.

      Suddenly one wonders if they've not been subject to banking regulations all along and have been lying about it.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Oh. by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Although the IT help desk is shared between the two halves, I worked on the eBay side and was told by my eBay supervisor that PayPal fell under banking regulations. That could easily mean accounting regulations for the purpose of keeping assets separate. OTOH, PayPal has stricter hiring requirements than eBay (i.e., a better than average credit report). This bipolar worldview within one company got confusing at times.

    4. Re:Oh. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      I worked on the eBay side and was told by my eBay supervisor that PayPal fell under banking regulations.

      Back when I worked as a helldesk jockey for a medical lab, I was told by my supervisor that the helpdesk PC's screensaver couldn't be changed because of HIPAA...

      Just sayin', supervisors can say some dumb shit.

  2. Thank you FCC by ITRambo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Lately the FCC seems to be the only competent part of the federal government.

    1. Re:Thank you FCC by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 2

      Lately the FCC seems to be the only competent part of the federal government.

      Or the "World's government" - i am a Greek and i hope that the (USA's) Federal Communications Commission (F.C.C.) will (at least) try to save me from "PayPal's Forced Robocalls Plan...

      I did not had any complain for PayPal until this advertising robocalls "plan" - if i receive any on my phone (voice or text message, something not rare in Greece, where we don't have USA's Federal law which requires an explicit opt-in to receive such messages) i will cancel my account, something i really would not like doing.

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    2. Re:Thank you FCC by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      You could just give them a BS phone number (like a Google Voice number - one they can verify, but never actually call you at).

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    3. Re:Thank you FCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lately the FCC seems to be the only competent part of the federal government.

      How are you commenting on slashdot without a phone or internet connection?
      (You must have bought the dope you're smoking the old fashioned way.)

    4. Re:Thank you FCC by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 2

      That is a solution but i prefer to be honest when dealing with such issues because it makes life simple: you need my phone number for something important (e.g., call me about a fraud), i will give it to you (it is already required by my bank that the PayPal account is connected to), but if you use it for advertising robocall i will cancel my account - keep in mind that they operate as a "semi" bank (so, giving them inaccurate personal info, or not responding to communication with them, gives them an legal advantage if a serious dispute ever exists - at least in my country, Greece)

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    5. Re:Thank you FCC by JazzLad · · Score: 2

      A GV phone number not forwarded to your number can only generate emails/text messages - you see one you want to deal with, you listen to the recorded message.

      I completely get not dealing with a company with policies you don't approve of, but unless it is a moral objection, it is a trivial one to bypass with technology.

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    6. Re:Thank you FCC by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Lately the FCC seems to be the only competent part of the federal government.

      "Rachel from Cardholder Services" would disagree with that assessment. How come the NSA can track every phone call, yet the FCC is too incompetent to find even the most egregious robo-callers?

    7. Re:Thank you FCC by smarkham01 · · Score: 1

      How is that you confuse incompetence with enforcement budgets and political pressure? Congress doesn't provide sufficient funding and demands the FCC not interfere with "the market", When the majority of directors are conservative appointees, protecting the rate paying public isn't a high priority. When others are in charge, money isn't provided to accomplish the mission..

    8. Re:Thank you FCC by Rigel47 · · Score: 1

      You must be employed there. Nobody else thinks they're remotely competent. Go look at the thousands of people complaining online about being robo dialled despite being on the DoNotCall list.

    9. Re:Thank you FCC by Rigel47 · · Score: 1

      Please.. there are a small number of companies behind these robo calls and the FCC seizes their assets when they finally get around to doing something. Their budget is over $300 million for fuck's sake.

    10. Re: Thank you FCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of those complaints are due to misunderstanding about loop holes. The do not call list only stops called from those that didn't rent a congressman.

    11. Re:Thank you FCC by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      demands the FCC not interfere with "the market"

      BS. Show me one citation for any member of congress defending violations of the NDNC.

      NDNC is one of the most popular laws ever passed by congress. For a few years, it was actually effective.

    12. Re:Thank you FCC by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 1

      A GV phone number not forwarded to your number can only generate emails/text messages - you see one you want to deal with, you listen to the recorded message.

      You are right but you have to check it - this is not a a way to simplify my life (o.k., i know, i ask too much, but i am a lazy Greek!).

      I completely get not dealing with a company with policies you don't approve of, but unless it is a moral objection, it is a trivial one to bypass with technology.

      It is less of a moral objection (althrough i had "escalated" the situation in some similar incidents because of moral objections) and more of a practical issue: if you read my agreement with the Greek bank and/or the Greek law it makes it clear that you are responsible to provide accurate personal info to, and respond to communication with, third parties (e.g., PayPal) - i was a business owner that had to deal with Greek banks/law and this BAD experiance made me read the "small letters" and be "religious" keeping my part of the agreements!

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    13. Re:Thank you FCC by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      Don't forget NOAA/NWS. Those folks really do save lives every day, unlike so many agencies claiming to do so.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    14. Re:Thank you FCC by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Do you want the US to be the World Police or do you not?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    15. Re:Thank you FCC by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Do you want the US to be the World Police or do you not?

      I am a Greek NATIONALIST: i want the US to be the World Police - someone must do it, and History proved that they was (and still are) the bravest for the job... if not them, who?

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    16. Re:Thank you FCC by smarkham01 · · Score: 1

      Between the two of you, there isn't much more to say. Rigel47's âoesmall number of companiesâ have resulted in over 600 court cases by the FCC; and $300 million doesn't go far when you are chasing callers who are providing spoofed info in their caller id packets. In those cases the FCC has to file a subpoena in each area that the call has gone through a telephone exchange starting with the one closest to the receiver. Law requires the FCC to complete all actions and file the case within one year, pretty hard to do when uncooperative countries may take six months to a year to honor records requests. The law was really popular and definitely bi-partisan, but when a bi-partisan committee met in 2008 to consider new ways to stop robocalls, neither house of congress acted on t he bill (Federal Robocall Privacy Act[) (pay attention here - this is how congress acts interested and doesn't let executive agencies actually do anything). You might also consider the FTC's enforcement actions in this area. The two Fs work togather fairly closely in this area. As for fuck's sake, my fuck doesn't need, nor want, you sake.

    17. Re:Thank you FCC by weilawei · · Score: 1

      Google Voice numbers aren't BS. For all paperwork and official communication, I give out my Google Voice number. Only friends and family get my cell phone number.

      If it's really important enough, the caller will make it easy for me to call them back. If I can't call them back at a direct number, they're just shit out of luck.

      Plus, audio interfaces for voicemail are terrible. It's vastly preferable for me to read a transcript, as I also have fairly severe hearing loss.

    18. Re:Thank you FCC by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      Fair point, they can be used as a BS number, but they are also awesome (I agree 100%).

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    19. Re:Thank you FCC by KGIII · · Score: 1

      At least your are consistent. So many complain when the US does and then complain when the US doesn't. You are, at least, willing to hold a position. I, personally, would prefer a more active and efficient UN.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    20. Re:Thank you FCC by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      And the NSA's budget is probably (it's hard to tell because it's classified) at least thirty times that.

    21. Re:Thank you FCC by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 1

      At least your are consistent. So many complain when the US does and then complain when the US doesn't. You are, at least, willing to hold a position. I, personally, would prefer a more active and efficient UN.

      I really appreciate your reply Sir, plus i respect you more because, even if you may disagree with me, you respect the fact that i try to be direct (i know i become boring and/or upset many with this "i am Greek...", but one reason i do it is out of "cultural honesty") - and i respect direct questions like the one you did (and i respect people who make direct questions AND answer their own questions as honest and brave men, like you did).

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    22. Re:Thank you FCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The National Do Not Call Registry doesn't have the same impact as the TCPA against a joker robocalling a mobile phone or similarly protected class of phone lines. Unless you gave *WRITTEN* consent to allow them to robocall your number, their ass is grass to the tune of $500-1500 PER CALL.

    23. Re:Thank you FCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government is incompetent and takes a long time to do anything. We should cut their budget until they start improving.

    24. Re:Thank you FCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lately the FCC seems to be the only competent part of the federal government.

      Or the "World's government" - i am a Greek and i hope that the (USA's) Federal Communications Commission (F.C.C.) will (at least) try to save me from "PayPal's Forced Robocalls Plan...

      I did not had any complain for PayPal until this advertising robocalls "plan" - if i receive any on my phone (voice or text message, something not rare in Greece, where we don't have USA's Federal law which requires an explicit opt-in to receive such messages) i will cancel my account, something i really would not like doing.

      Die in a fire you stupid fucking oxygen thief.

    25. Re: Thank you FCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nearly all the robocalls I get are from politicians. During the campaign season I'll get 6-8 of them a night. Most of the rest of the year I get fewer than one a day.

    26. Re:Thank you FCC by Keybounce · · Score: 1

      "Rachel from Cardholder Services" would disagree with that assessment.

      I thought the FCC *did* file a suit against Cardholder Services for that junk. What happened?

  3. Lawyerly bullshit .. by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yes, but PayPal is making the bullshit argument that continuing to use the service is opt-in.

    Because PayPal is, and has always been, ran by assholes who don't give a shit about their users.

    And when it can come down to "let us spam you or lose access to our service", they're just doing more of the same.

    For some reason we've accepted that corporations can change the terms any time they want to, and claim to have implied consent because you didn't stop using it.

    Which when you're talking about entity which might have your money or impact your livelihood, is a pretty douchebag move.

    Which is exactly why I'll never deal with PayPal.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re: Lawyerly bullshit .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you, Elon Musk (who made the fortune that he's spending, Paul Allen fashion, as a PayPal founder)

    2. Re:Lawyerly bullshit .. by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 4, Informative

      RTFA: "FCC requirements ban requiring a customer to consent to receive autodialed or prerecorded telemarketing or advertising calls as a condition of a purchase..."

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    3. Re:Lawyerly bullshit .. by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 2

      Yes, but PayPal is making the bullshit argument that continuing to use the service is opt-in.

      It isn't?

      For some reason we've accepted that corporations can change the terms any time they want to, and claim to have implied consent because you didn't stop using it.

      I quit using AOL when I no longer liked their terms of service. When Microsoft announced that the XBone was going to require always on internet and a janky game sharing system, people threatened to not buy it. Similar situations have happened to Apple, Sony, Facebook, etc. Corporations can't just do whatever they want. If they alienate too many people, they lose $$$.

      Which is exactly why I'll never deal with PayPal.

      Free market in action.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    4. Re:Lawyerly bullshit .. by Moof123 · · Score: 2

      Somehow EULA's need to get reigned in.

      Perhaps we need to fight fire with fire. Maybe start slipping a CEO's first born clauses into open source software, or other ridiculous things so that a few major corporations can find themselves signed up to make major donations to charity after their employees clicked through the latest update.

      We are supposedly a country of rights and laws, but we have run out of times and places where those rights have not be superseded by some arbitration clause, or some automatic opt-in BS.

    5. Re:Lawyerly bullshit .. by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We are supposedly a country of rights and laws

      Well, that used to be true.

      Now you're a country of corporations, profits, and lawyers.

      Since you can't afford to bribe the politicians as much as the corporations do, what you want doesn't matter.

      Welcome to the dystopian future, now fully equipped with an oligarchy to ensure you get fucked in the process.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    6. Re:Lawyerly bullshit .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, good call. I believe I will cancel also. I've only used the service once - to pay for something at a site I didn't fully trust.

    7. Re:Lawyerly bullshit .. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      But we do have the best damned justice system money can buy anywhere in the world. Do you dispute that?

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    8. Re:Lawyerly bullshit .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't?

      No. If it was they wouldn't be potentially violating the law.

    9. Re:Lawyerly bullshit .. by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 2

      This is an interesting opinion. You seem to think that of all the ills that the US has this is the largest one. I wouldn't have it in the top 10. I can't conceive how Christianity could beat out inequality, a bought and paid for government, corruption, police impunity, a declining middle class, declining social mobility, environmental issues, government gridlock, and many other ills. I'm just curious how Christianity beats out these other problems. Not trolling - legitimately curious about the argument for how this would be even in the top 3.

    10. Re:Lawyerly bullshit .. by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Well, that used to be true.

      Oh really? When was there this mythical time period?

    11. Re:Lawyerly bullshit .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it was never true unless you're just conveniently ignoring the numerous examples of minorities and poor people who were denied various rights from the very founding of the country. Or ignoring laws that blatantly violated the Constitution dating back to the times of John Adams. The US has always been an oligarchy. The only difference today is they've stopped trying to hide that fact as much.

    12. Re:Lawyerly bullshit .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say it's simple - you were replying to a religious zealot.

    13. Re:Lawyerly bullshit .. by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      America stopped having a "justice" system LONG ago...

    14. Re:Lawyerly bullshit .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When did it actually have one?

    15. Re:Lawyerly bullshit .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that used to be true.

      [citation needed]

    16. Re:Lawyerly bullshit .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Yes, but PayPal is making the bullshit argument that continuing to use the service is opt-in.

      I can just see the new rules:

      "PayPal, now just $0.01 per month! Enjoy a 1 cent advertising discount when you choose to opt-into our calling agreement. (Please not that non-paying accounts will be suspended until payment is made or advertising opt-in is completed. We apologize, payment for this service is only available via TT or certified cheque. Pre-payments are not accepted and post dated cheques will not be returned.)"

      >Because PayPal is, and has always been, ran by assholes who don't give a shit about their users.

      See above. :)

    17. Re:Lawyerly bullshit .. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I don't see that AC said it was the biggest problem the US has. AC definitely thinks it is a problem.

      US religions are involved in inequality, environmental issues, government gridlock, and many other ills. Not all US religions or Christians are involved, but there's an unpleasantly large and vocal minority who are.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    18. Re:Lawyerly bullshit .. by Rasperin · · Score: 1

      *woosh*

      --
      WTF Slashdot, why do I have to login 50 times to post?
    19. Re:Lawyerly bullshit .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't see it because you've got your nose shoved so far into Deuteronomy's pages that you can smell the Philistine's farts!

  4. Is this for real? by TheCreeep · · Score: 1

    If PayPal wants to randomly call customers to serve them advertisements, I wish the FCC would allow them

    Then people would be moving to competing services in droves and we would liven up the competition in this space.

    1. Re:Is this for real? by dark.nebulae · · Score: 1

      What competition? Any website you go to has creditcards and paypal. There is no other competition.

    2. Re:Is this for real? by brunes69 · · Score: 0

      The robo-calls were not for advertisements, they were for collections.

      IE - you would get a robo-call saying your bank account was overdrawn and you owe Paypal $5000.

      The only difference between what Paypal wants to do and what all other collection agencies do is if a human is on the other end of the phone.

    3. Re:Is this for real? by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      What competition? Any website you go to has creditcards and paypal. There is no other competition.

      O rly? And let's not ignore this looming 800 lb. gorilla, which I'm sure is ready to spring into the retail market soon.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    4. Re:Is this for real? by __aajfby9338 · · Score: 2

      The robo-calls were not for advertisements, they were for collections.

      IE - you would get a robo-call saying your bank account was overdrawn and you owe Paypal $5000.

      The only difference between what Paypal wants to do and what all other collection agencies do is if a human is on the other end of the phone.

      That's what PayPal claimed when the backlash against the new ToS began. But the ToS specifically included polls and telemarketing as their allowed use of robocalls. I cancelled both my PayPal and eBay (which has nearly identical terms of service) over this. I think they could probably eliminate most of the user backlash by removing the advertising clauses from their terms of service, notwithstanding any federal regulations that might still restrict their use of robocalls.

    5. Re: Is this for real? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should move to a country with a modern banking system. Been able to make and receive money via email for years in Kanuckistan direct from a bank account, no cc or bank account info transferred, no cc required.t

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    6. Re:Is this for real? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      O rly?

      Those are not viable alternatives, since very few websites offer any of them as a form of payment.

    7. Re:Is this for real? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, yes, let's ignore that one, and hope it goes away. I trust Facebook about as far as I could throw an 800 lb gorilla. I'd rather deal with PayPal, which isn't saying much.

    8. Re:Is this for real? by zlives · · Score: 1

      until paypal runs their customers off... i am sure amazon services/ google/apple pay would benefit.

    9. Re: Is this for real? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      The Canadian divisions of the big online retailers are starting to catch up too. I ordered something off newegg.ca the other day and paid by Interac. It only took twenty years.

  5. Amerika by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    And this is why you have regulators, so they stop dominant businesses from fucking you over. Now say thank you for the FCC.

    1. Re:Amerika by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I'll be glad to - just as soon as they actually do something to stop it. For now they've just given Paypal's lawyers a polite notification of a potential upcoming gymnastics match.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re:Amerika by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      Wow. They saved us from one source of robocalls. Now how about all the other robocalls I get despite being on the do-not-call registry? Or about the sales calls weakly disguised as surveys? Or the push surveys that offer no opt-out that keep calling and calling until you complete them? Or how about protecting us from the carve-out for politicians so they can keep calling even though we don't want them to? Or how about stopping all the calls that use fake caller-id information?

      Oh yea man, thanks so much for the regulators. They're REALLY earning their keep.

  6. I would drop them like a fucking rock by Tyr07 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Right now I use them for my payment gateway and online transactions.

    If paypal demanded I receive robo calls on my fucking phone line as part of their fucking service, as someone who has been completely happy with paypal up to that point, I'd drop them like the biggest fucking rock into the biggest fucking ocean with a large karploosh like someone taking a giant shit and flushing it down the fucking toliet.

    It's bad enough that ads all over visually and sometimes audio ads on webpages. You think my person communication device for talking to people I know is another platform for fucking advertisements? Fuck you you fucking bastards, I'd close my fucking account so fucking fast.

    It would be the god damn end of paypal. Everyone would switch back to using their CC online or another provider would step in and paypal would hopefully be permanently fucked hard.

    If anything they'd piss me off so fucking much that I would personally find each paypals employee phone numbers for their cell phones and robo call the fuck out of it, Always going "Do you like this? How do you fucking like it? I say you agreed to it by annyoing the piss out of me. Do you like this? How do..."

    1. Re:I would drop them like a fucking rock by hawguy · · Score: 1

      If paypal demanded I receive robo calls on my fucking phone line as part of their fucking service, as someone who has been completely happy with paypal up to that point, I'd drop them like the biggest fucking rock into the biggest fucking ocean with a large karploosh like someone taking a giant shit and flushing it down the fucking toliet.

      Where would you go? you signed up with Paypal for a reason, what is the next best alternative?

    2. Re:I would drop them like a fucking rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Credit cards. Google Wallet. There are alternatives. Paypal is putting a loaded, cocked gun to their own head with this bullshit.

    3. Re:I would drop them like a fucking rock by Tyr07 · · Score: 1

      I liked being able to use my bank and accept paypal since people use it.

      Instead, I'd just use my credit card directly for online purchases, subscriptions, and I'd only accept the main credit card companies for my payment gateway.

    4. Re:I would drop them like a fucking rock by brunes69 · · Score: 0

      Again, the robo calls are not for ads or spam. They are so Paypal can do collections calls in an automated way.

      Why is it every single post on the front page right now is talking about ads when that is not what this is about at all?

      RTFA.

    5. Re:I would drop them like a fucking rock by Jiro · · Score: 4, Informative

      That is not true. Paypal's language uses collection calls as an example, but is written in such a way that they can robocall you for any reason or no reason.

    6. Re:I would drop them like a fucking rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why give them your phone number to begin with?

    7. Re:I would drop them like a fucking rock by hawguy · · Score: 1

      I liked being able to use my bank and accept paypal since people use it.

      Instead, I'd just use my credit card directly for online purchases, subscriptions, and I'd only accept the main credit card companies for my payment gateway.

      I think many sellers would see less business if they stop accepting Paypal -- I like paypal payments because I don't want to give out my credit card number to random people on the internet -even if my money is not at risk, credit card fraud is annoying to deal with (have to identify all of the fraudulent charges, update payment info for recurring charges, etc). There's a lot of smaller merchants that I just wouldn't buy from if I had to give them a CC number.

      Is there a viable competitor to Paypal? Google and/or Apple could probably come up with a competitive service, but they seem to want Android/IOS lock-in more than they want to provide a service. Maybe Google Wallet already offers everything paypal does?

    8. Re:I would drop them like a fucking rock by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      wow just wow you didn't even read the article yourself
      https://www.paypalobjects.com/webstatic/ua/pdf/US/ints/ua.pdf

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    9. Re:I would drop them like a fucking rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just guessing that it really wouldn't this to get you very pissed, off! Would it?

    10. Re:I would drop them like a fucking rock by Tyr07 · · Score: 1

      Depends,

      I originally heard it would be used for solicitation of services. If people starting getting phone call based ads for services or other junk, a lot of people would not want to use paypal.

      Someone else said it was to do with collections, so it depends on the nature of the robo calls I would assume.

    11. Re:I would drop them like a fucking rock by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Your reaction probably isn't unique. Fortunately, the FCC is there to protect corporations like this from doing truly stupid things that would damage their market position.

      Maybe the FCC could allow one of the many tried-to-challenge-Paypal companies to actually exist? Ha! I kid - they're there to ensure that the regulatory costs that Paypal never encountered as a startup make it too expensive to challenge them.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    12. Re:I would drop them like a fucking rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you know how credit cards work... right?

    13. Re:I would drop them like a fucking rock by KGIII · · Score: 1

      You have all these complaints, enough to be foul about it, and yet still utilize their services. We are to believe that this, something in addition to all your woes, is the straw that breaks your proverbial camel's back? I do not believe you.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    14. Re:I would drop them like a fucking rock by fnj · · Score: 1

      What in the heck do you think the Federal COMMUNICATIONS Commission has to do with regulating a bank as a non-bank? I was under the impression that that is the FDIC's purview. As far as I know, PayPal and other such enterprises are also subject to the regulations of the individual states

  7. Don't use PayPal and never will by AntronArgaiv · · Score: 3, Informative

    Reason #1: they're unregulated
    Reason #2: They have a demonstrated history of exploiting reason #1 (see www.paypalsucks.com for more information)

    It just doesn't make sense to allow an organization like this to have any amount of access and/or control over your money.

  8. Now if they could just stop the Infosys robocalls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The past two weeks we've been receiving several hundred of them a day. Who would hire contract developers from a telemarketer? Their calls can't be that effective. They're really annoying our developers, especially the ones that have their desk phones forwarded to their cellphones since Infosys sometimes calls at night.

  9. Fuck you very much PayPal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's all.

  10. PayPal controls the present AND the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I first saw the news about the new agreement, I canceled my PayPal account. I think I had been a user since 1998 or 1999. I've hardly ever had to use it in the last few years, but it was occasionally convenient. Then, just this week, I wanted to buy some merchandise online, and the seller only accepted PayPal. They gave me an option to purchase as a "guest", and I almost did that, then I decided to check the terms of service. It said that, not only was I agreeing to the present terms of service, but I would also be agreeing to the FUTURE terms of service, which includes the new section 1.10 allowing robocalls. I passed on the merchandise. It is appalling that a corporation can be allowed to force you into a future contract that legally doesn't even exist yet.

    1. Re:PayPal controls the present AND the future by ledow · · Score: 2

      They can't legally do so.

      What you agree to in a contract has to be reasonable, and a court of law decides that, not Paypal or whatever you agreed to.

      Automatic inclusion of any and all future clauses is unreasonable.

      In the EU, and it appears the US, robocalls are illegal without prior and explicit consent.

      Just because a piece of paper, signed by you, with your knowledge, says something does not trump your rights. Statutory rights. Sound familiar?

      It's a dirty move, but it's also a stupid - and unenforceable - one. As I said at the time - try it, Paypal - just go for it. See what happen with the backing of EU law, no matter what I agreed to, where you are based or anything else.

      Companies do not make the law. The law makes companies.

    2. Re:PayPal controls the present AND the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Companies do not make the law.

      Clearly you are not from the USA...

    3. Re: PayPal controls the present AND the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly what i did.

  11. My Library wont like that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who needs a phone these days... they are sooo. 90's

  12. Please, someone imlement this: by Sqr(twg) · · Score: 4, Funny

    From TFA: "[Pay Pal's] general counsel, Louise Pentland, wrote in a blog post last week that its customers can choose not to receive autodialed or prerecorded message calls by contacting customer support."

    So, could someone, please, build a system where anyone can fill out a web-from and it robo-calls PayPal support using text-to-speech. The call would go something like this.

    This is to inform you that your customer. John. Smith. Is requesting not to receive automated phone calls.
    The user name of. John. Smith. is. J. S. M. I. T. H. 1. 2. 3. He, or she, is requesting not to receive automated phone calls.
    The reason that. John. Smith. has given is: Go. Fuck. Yourself.

    Message repeats. This is to inform you that your customer. John. Smith. Is requesting not to receive automated phone calls.
    The user name of. John. Smith. is. J. S. M. I. T. H. 1. 2. 3. He, or she, is requesting not to receive automated phone calls.
    The reason that. John. Smith. has given is: Go. Fuck. Yourself.

    Message repeats...

    If the system is not able to reach customer support, then it could switch to Pentland's home number instead.

    1. Re:Please, someone imlement this: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That would be illegal.

      As a mere single, non-corporate person, you're not allowed to hinder, harass, annoy, or otherwise aggravate or inconvenience or interfere in any fashion with a mighty, mighty, corporation or their rich owners, who are, after-all, your "leaders'" true masters and owners. Welcome to corporate (owned) America (TM) (C) ® (SM) (etc.) brought to you by Starphucks!®

      On a related note, I've closed my eBay and PayPal accounts, since my account with each was the only reason for having my account with the other. And good riddance to bad rubbish. Both companies were pretty sleazy and smarmy, and I'd had an unacceptably high number of bad experiences with both, this was the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back. Phuck the both of them! :-) Feels a bit like I'm a mayor and I've just demolished a couple of abandoned factory buildings where for some reason, no business venture was ever particularly successful, between which were alleys in which criminals and other low-life scum liked to hang out and do dubious business. As the buildings were bulldozed, the rats ran for cover! Well, let the rats move elsewhere; they won't live in my city while I'm mayor!

      Okay, wow... that was way more cathartic than I expected! What other accounts can I close?!? Ohhh... Bank of America...

      J/K. I haven't dealt with those cucksockers in years!

    2. Re:Please, someone imlement this: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but having to call customer support to not get robocalls is not opt-in, but opt-out. The FCC says it has to be opt-in. And no, PayPal changing terms of service to try to say that continuing to use the service is opting in doesn't cut it! It does not matter what terms of service or ULEAs say, they cannot contradict the law. What PayPal is doing contradicts the law (FCC rules have the force of law). I also understand that since my phone number is on the FTC's do not call list, PayPal is violating FTC rules as well.

      If the FCC and FTC cannot put a stop to this crap, I will be dropping PayPal like a hot potato, and I am sure many others will as well. Its time that someone kicked these corporate AS*hats to the curb ove ULEAs and trems of service that violate people's rights, especially their right to privacy!!!

    3. Re:Please, someone imlement this: by Atrox666 · · Score: 2

      Get in contact with PayPal customer support..bahahahahahah!

      You could also get a hold of big foot and have him just beat them to death with a unicorn. My way is more plausible.

    4. Re:Please, someone imlement this: by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      From TFA: "[Pay Pal's] general counsel, Louise Pentland, wrote in a blog post last week that its customers can choose not to receive autodialed or prerecorded message calls by contacting customer support."

      This is evil. The last time I tried contacting Pay Pal's customer support. I waited three hours on the line. And I wasn't even calling them as a consumer, I was calling them as a business that made them a lots of money. I can only imagine what's the actual wait time for an actual consumer of little value to them that wants to be taken off their robocall list.

  13. In other news, PayandPaySomeMore adds a $10/mo fee by hwstar · · Score: 1

    Monthly fee waived if you opt in to our robocall program and buy what's pitched there on a regular basis....

  14. I canceled my Paypal account over this issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was the last straw

  15. SHUT UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lately the FCC seems to be the only competent part of the federal government.

    You'll JINX IT! You want the entire government broken, DAMN IT?!?

  16. canceling in 3... 2... 1.... by roc97007 · · Score: 2

    I'm self-employed and generally get paid through Paypal. If that means getting forced robocall ads, that will be the end of our relationship. This is not negotiable.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  17. employees and officers forgot they're human first by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    Because PayPal is, and has always been, ran by assholes who don't give a shit about their users.

    I am incline to think it was started by assholes and that shaped the corporate culture into that of an asshole. So long after their departure, the company continue to act like assholes. At this point the only remedy is to nuke the company (with all hands) from orbit.

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  18. Re:In other news, PayandPaySomeMore adds a $10/mo by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

    For $5 per month, we can get a local phone number that is a voice mail box.

  19. and to this day... by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... as PayPal fell under the banking regulations and played by a different set of rules... Just like working at a bank.

    And to this day PayPal continues to fight tooth and nail to have itself _NOT_ classified as a bank in the US to evade banking regulations.

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    1. Re:and to this day... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Just like every other Fortune 500 company in America.

    2. Re:and to this day... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? All those companies are worried about being classified as a bank?

    3. Re:and to this day... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Fortune 500 companies are worried about financial regulations that will limit their profits. That's why GE is selling off GE Capital to avoid those regulations.

    4. Re:and to this day... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the others? You are irrational.

    5. Re:and to this day... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Read The Wall Street Journal and educate yourself.

    6. Re: and to this day... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WSJ used to be great but now it's just a paper version of Fox News

    7. Re:and to this day... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You misused with a statement that paypal was avoiding being declared a bank in order to twistedly apply that your own agenda against corporations. You first post was obviously false, but you said it anyway, as the connotation fit what you wanted to say, and you could then later hand-wave away the wrongness of it.

    8. Re:and to this day... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      This is Slashdot, not Politico.

  20. Paypal shouldn't ask by Rigel47 · · Score: 1

    Because none of the other robo-callers do and the FCC does FUCK ALL about them. I've been getting robo dialled at least twice a day now for months. Credit card rate lowering services, free cruises, free shit for seniors, etc. I'm on the DoNotCall list, and I have to answer unknown numbers due to my work. I've filed dozens of complaints on their website and nothing changes.

    What could be an easier crime to track down? Electronic record of phone call? Solicitation of a financial transaction? Hundreds if not thousands of complaints per offender.

    Worthless, useless federal bureaucracy.

    1. Re:Paypal shouldn't ask by Stan92057 · · Score: 2

      Well the only thing i can tell you is keep reporting. For when the FCC finally does do something about it every complain is added in to the final fine. The million dollar fines are the 10,000 per complaint call all added up. They win when we give up.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    2. Re:Paypal shouldn't ask by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The problem is that robocall services are hard to track down, and can easily change corporate identity. The FCC is much more effective against existing companies that can't run and can't hide.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    3. Re:Paypal shouldn't ask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hm... Paypal...can't run...can't hide... Siccin' the FCC, FTC, or the IRS after their sorry misbegotten asses sounds like *FUN*

    4. Re:Paypal shouldn't ask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, if they DO happen to call a mobile phone or a SIP or similar service line...it's $500 (and in this case $1500...it was done willfully...) per call so done. The TOS doesn't constitute a formal written agreement in the manner allowing them an out under the TCPA.

    5. Re:Paypal shouldn't ask by Rigel47 · · Score: 1

      Hard or not, it's *their job*. And they suck at it. And behind corporations are people.. that can go to jail. Y'know, deterrence and all that.

  21. Ehh.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm in Canada, does this affect me either way?
    Also, I could just as well get a second phone number, for free, on my VOIP service, just for paypal.. and link it to a phone that will never ring (because I will either have ripped the speaker from it or just reduced the ringtone volume to 0%)

  22. Good reason to cancel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Been meaning to cancel my PayPal since i still get emailed about my account but havent used it in months. These robocalls now give me a perfect reason to cancel it today.

  23. Stop using the service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PayPal told users that the only way to avoid advertising robocalls from PayPal and its 'partners' was to stop using the service.

    No problem. I just did.

  24. Re:I would drop them like a f-iretru-cking rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Watch what you say and how you say it. There were one or two short sentences in there without an F-bomb.

  25. PAYPAL SUCKS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Regulate these jerks into submission.

  26. WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the FCC is chasing foreign companies, they have failed.

    Unless the scumbag companies have a presence in the US, the FCC has zero jurisdiction.