728_header.jpg (23748 bytes)
 Home   EB Blog   AB Blog   Letters   Podcasts   Forums   EPIS   PR Service   Classifieds   
  Email    NewsFlash RSS    Twitter      Web Site  

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14
  1. Default

    I was a customer of paypal until they stop my account because of a charge back for an item that was shipped with proof of receipt by fedex. Anyway, here are the few things I am doing and could suggest to others; especially during their quiet period for IPO.

    1. I recently issued a press release via business wire concerning the problem I have with paypal. The cost of this press release was only $50 but certainly will get to investment and business community.
    2. In adddition, I am having a pending legal case against Paypal in California for violating California Consumer Protection relating to its advance notice of any changes to their policies and term of service of 21 days along with specific error resolution procedures and timetables to limit customer liability for transactions that are not authorized.
    3. Write to the SEC concerning misleading statements in their S1 filling. You can view their filling at http://www.edgar-online.com/bin/edga...2057-01-543278

    4. People should use their credit card for payment instead of bank transfer since they are paying 1.9% for processing while virtually none for ACH or fund in the account.
    5. In my belief, paypal acts in many ways like a bank rather than money transmitter. For this reason, I also had write to the California Office of the Comptroller and many should do the same.
    6. In addition, I am also writting to various financial reporters concerning paypal IPO. The analysis is very simple. Paypal is in the mist of decision making by various regulatory bodies in the US whether they are a bank or money transmitter. There are substantial risks if they are classified as a bank despite what said on their site. These bodies are reviewing their conducts rather than policies. The more regulatory bodies hear from consumer the better it will act toward classifying paypal as a bank. Furthermore, consumers are afforded more protection from using credit card than bank transfer or cash in paypal account. Paypal revenue are made up of subtantial profit (about 65% from non-credit card use). Furthermore, the fact that paypal issued debit card is a conduct fall within banking laws despite the fact that they acted in concert with other bank.

    Due to paypal inability to act, I am working to get the matter resolve at their own games. As you may notice, info are floated on the internet and forums; but that does not hurt their bottomline or ability to raise fund through their anticipated IPO. Thats why I am working outside of that channel and going directly to financial/institutional community. I would like to consolidate stories and complain to issue additional press release to further getting these issues directly into the financial communities.

    NoPaypal

  2. #2

    Default

    I recommed that sellers never accept a credit card payment through paypal since it can be charged back even if you follow their so-called protection rules. Buyers should never use paypal with anything but credit card since the only protection you have is if you can do a charge back. The problem is that if everyone listened to me, no one would be using paypal. Then what would we have to complain about on the boards?


  3. Default

    fed up with paypal and are getting nowhere with there customer care here is there Corporate address and phone number. Actual Company name is Confinity Confinity, Inc (PAYPAL2-DOM) 1840 Embarcadero Rd. Palo Alto, CA 94303 US Domain Name: PAYPAL.COM hostmaster@PAYPAL.COM PayPal, Inc. Palo Alto, CA 94303 Palo Alto, CA 94303 US 650.251.1100 Fax- 650.251.1101

  4. Default

    Hi everyone,
    maybe theres some hope I have found a new PayPal Fraud complaint forum at http://mfg-buyback.dns2go.com

    it seems that alot of people have problems with them put your complaint on their list
    and help them start a class action suit against paypal. they are also open to suggestions and other links to build their site to get the FTC and Law enforcement to follow through for everyone with problems with paypal not just big money problems.

    thanks and have a nice day

  5. Default

    If that site describes "the problem", PayPal is doing fine.

    "I bought computer software and it won't run on all my computers and the merchant won't give my money back and neither will PayPal"

    "a bad guy ripped me off for $350 and PayPal won't give my money back"

    We can imagine being upset by someone ripping you off, but to lash out at PayPal in these kinds of cases is absurd.

    PayPal does have protection, but it's not protection from such things as computer software not running on all your computers.

  6. Default

    The guy running the above mentioned site has an agenda. Let me explain. There are people who work for a living. And then there are people who are looking for someone to sue so that they don't have to work for a living. Sometimes such people succeed, but it doesn't get rid of the misery they feel every day of their life.


    good news to let you know i am serious i just bought paypalsuit.com it will be online in a day or so it is setup as a template to show to perspective lawyers as there are many complaint locations on the web but when it gets to crunch it will need to be in one website by it's self.

    jamie

  7. #7

    Default

    Write this day down in your history books because for once I agree mostly with roofguy. I get about a dozen emails a day from folks who are mad and want to sue paypal. 8-10 of these are from folks who did something stupid (like ship to Indonesia or use their paypal account to launder money for another party) or from folks who simply feel they got ripped off in what they received. None of this is paypal's fault. Do you expect them to go to every seller and watch what gets packed then go to every buyer and watch what gets unpacked? When you use paypal, you should expect about the same protection as when you pay someone with a money order (actually a little more). It means if you get nothing, paypal should ask the seller to show proof of delivery. If you get something, then it's between buyer and seller. Where roofguy and I disagree is how paypal handles these things.
    First, they make a promise of protection which has been broken so many times, it's worthless. Second, they don't have a consistent policy. If they had a policy of never getting involved in quality of goods issues (as roofguy keeps insisting) I wouldnt have a problem with them. But they DO get involved. Sometimes they just go and take it back from a seller with high ratings and no reason to believe he did anything wrong. So it becomes anyone's guess at how they will handle any situation. There is nothing anyone can do to protect themselves. And that is what leads to the numerous complaints.


  8. Default

    It's nice to see you back, Yisgood. Things have been a bit dull around here without you.

    We've been around this corner before. The issue isn't that PayPal is inconsistent or unpredictable. The issue is that they don't do what you would prefer. And in fact, the PayPal policy is confusing to the beginner, because it doesn't look the same from all perspectives. But once you understand it, it is completely predictable, and not at all dependent upon individual interpretation.

    The perspective confusion arrives from the difference between PayPal protection and credit card protection.

    From the seller perspective:

    1. PayPal does not get involved in quality of merchandise disputes. Never has, never will.

    2. PayPal protects merchants who follow the rules from most credit card chargebacks, but NOT quality of merchandise chargebacks (for reasons which should be obvious)

    From the buyer's perspective:

    1. PayPal protects the buyer in cases of non-delivery.

    2. If a credit card is used, the buyer is protected by federal law in a variety of ways. This protection is offered by the buyer's credit card company. All credit card companies offer a form of protection which can be described as "right to return mail order merchandise for full refund". They don't state it quite like that, but that's the effect. That's the kicker for sellers looking to stick buyers with disappointing purchases. It just doesn't work when buyers use a credit card. Good riddance.

    One common contention involved sellers who simply refuse to accept that reality. They're mad at PayPal for refusing to absorb the quality of merchandise chargeback, or to get involved in a futile battle with buyer's credit card company.

    ---
    Observe that PayPal is the ONLY payment service which absorbs credit card chargebacks in cases where the card is stolen, or cases where the buyer claims non-receipt (again, for sellers who follow the rules)

  9. #9

    Default

    >>1. PayPal does not get involved in quality of merchandise disputes. Never has, never will.<<

    This is true only if you believe that only paypal is telling the truth and hundreds of sellers who have had their accounts restricted or funds taken back for quality of merchandise are all lying. Many of these "charge backs" happened in cases where credit cards were NOT used, so this is purely a paypal decision. There was at least one case where this took place two days after the auction, so there is no way that the credit card company acted that quickly. But of course everyone is lying, even sellers with hundreds of positives. Only Paypal is telling the truth.

    >>2. PayPal protects merchants who follow the rules from most credit card chargebacks, but NOT quality of merchandise chargebacks (for reasons which should be obvious) <<

    The reasons are obvious. Paypal is too darned lazy and it is easier for them to just pass it on to the seller. Most merchant accounts give the seller a chance to present his side, but not Paypal. That would require a Customer Service Department staffed with trained people and paypal can't afford that.

    >>From the buyer's perspective:

    1. PayPal protects the buyer in cases of non-delivery. <<

    IF the buyer used a credit card and IF the seller was stupid enough to leave the money in the paypal account for over a month. Otherwise the buyer is out of luck. This one I know for a fact. I tried to help a buyer who was scammed by a seller who used a fake name and fake address to open his account. His zip code did not match his city. His phone number did not match the city or zip code. But even this was not enough proof for paypal that the guy was a crook. They made the buyer wait over a month and then said "too bad, the seller's account has no money in it." That buyer felt really protected.

    Scamming sellers know enough to withdraw the money or send an empty box. Scamming buyers know enough to make complaints of "quality of goods." They are the ones protected. It's the honest folks who end up getting screwed. As bad as the regular merchant accounts go, at least they give the buyer real protection and the honest seller a fighting chance.




  10. Default

    hundreds of sellers who have had their accounts restricted or funds taken back for quality of merchandise are all lying. Many of these "charge backs" happened in cases where credit cards were NOT used, so this is purely a paypal decision.

    No such case, Yisgood.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •