posted on July 31, 2001 04:38:06 PM new
Nope Not I I've been off the boards for the past couple weeks prefering to hit the Country Club and work on my tan.
posted on July 31, 2001 10:11:59 PM new
Funny thing. I posted a couple days ago, asking why Paypal shouldn't eat this chargeback since it has been -- as Damon has admitted -- deceiving its sellers into believing that they would be protected against quality-of-merchandise chargebacks.
Looks like Damon went into the witness protection program, since he hasn't been heard from since.
But someone did post the following excerpt from a Paypal e-mail on the eBay board, confirming Paypal's fraudulent misrepresentation on this matter:
-----BEGIN----
Dear PayPal Seller,
Everywhere you turn these days, there are horror stories of Internet fraud. And online auction sellers are some of the biggest victims of fraud, often in the form of chargebacks. (Chargebacks occur when buyers reverse their credit card charges.) Sellers from all over the globe are writing about the financial burden of chargebacks:
"I had $1,485 yanked out of my account today for a chargeback from a customer, even though I have proof of shipping. My auction clearly states that I am not liable once the item is shipped...[and] I insured the package.
"[My] infant daughter may not have a place to lay her head since Billpoint took the rent money out of my checking account."
According to published reports, 2.64% of all online transactions are fraudulent, and auctions account for 9 out of 10 incidents of online crime. Chargebacks can double your cost of accepting online payments -- using a service that doesn't have chargeback protection could make you pay for transactions twice.
Fortunately, PayPal helps keep sellers safe from fraud. In addition to our sophisticated fraud-busting technology, PayPal also protects your money with the Seller Protection Policy -- a program designed especially to shield you from costly chargebacks. Just follow a few simple precautions and you can stay chargeback free.
Unfortunately, most online payment services (such as Billpoint™) don't offer similar fraud protection and burden their sellers with the cost of chargebacks. It really doesn't pay to trust your payments with anyone else!
Of course, our Seller Protection Policy isn't the only way PayPal helps safeguard your bottom line. We offer you many ways to trim your costs and increase your sales:
---- END -----
Note the wording: "Just follow a few simple precautions and you can stay chargeback free." Not free of all chargebacks except quality-of-merchandise claims, but "chargeback free".
And I'm willing to bet that all the sellers who got that e-mail have not received any update giving them the new interpretation.
So, I ask you again, Damon, since Paypal (and, until very recently, you as Paypal rep on these boards) has been telling sellers that they would be protected from all chargebacks, why don't you keep your word??????
Why cheat this seller out of thousands of dollars when you told them they would be covered and "chargeback free", and have never notified sellers (except o these boards) that this was no longer true (if it ever was)?
posted on August 1, 2001 06:18:00 AM new
There has been some debate about whether Paypal was right or wrong in accepting the return of a $2500 bag from the buyer and then charging back the seller. Damon maintains that the credit card company allowed the charge back and Paypal had no way to fight it, so they did this is order to make sure the seller at least gets the bag back. I spoke to an officer at a large credit card company (not Citibank) who told me that: 1) buyer's remorse is not an acceptable reason to charge something back. 2) If the buyer tried to make a claim of "quality of goods," the seller could refute it by sending the positive feedback on ebay and a copy of the buyer's email demanding a partial refund under threat of a charge back (which amounts to extortion). Though he could not give me a 100% guarantee, he said in all probability the charge back would have been denied. Someone at C2it told me they would have denied it as well. The only reason the buyer won in this case is because Paypal did not put up a defense and because Paypal invited the buyer to return the merchandise to them.
A few of you did not agree with this assessment. This morning I found an article in Newsday titled "E-tailer redress by credit card." I think it speaks volumes.
--------------------------------------
E-tailer Redress by Credit Card
Denise Flaim
Q. I found a Web site that sells lovely gift items. I ordered two items. The silver cover on one of them was scratched. Now comes the fun part - trying to exchange the damaged item. The site has two email addresses which I have written to several times - no responses. I also called the number listed on the site several times - no reply. Any suggestions? - Marlene
A. By the time we found out about Marlene's plight, things had gotten worse. First, our phone calls to the site went unanswered, then the number was disconnected. Finally, the site itself disappeared.
Marlene used her Mastercard to pay for the items but she said the company refused to credit her because she still had possession of the merchandise. Of course she still had the damaged merchandise: How do you return something to an e-tailer that has fallen off the face of the earth?
Situations like Marlene's don't get too much attention, explains Cary Flitter, a consumer-rights attorney based in suburban Philadelphia, because "you're usually dealing with small amounts of money. People don't charge $50,000 items. So how much litigation is going to go on?"
Since the site has gone belly-up, Marlene might have better luck trying to get redress from Mastercard. The credit-card issuer's responsibility is outlined in the Fair Credit Billing Act, which sets out some stipulations for consumers: For example, the amount of the initial transaction must be more than $50, and a consumer must complain in writing with 60 days after the bill containing the error is mailed. (For more details, visit www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/credit/fcb.htm)
Mastercard's initial refusal to consider a refund is typical, Flitter says. "Frankly I have found over the years that the banks have taken an increasingly narrow view of this statute."
His recommended course of action: Keep an excellent paper trail. Complain to the retailer in a short, detailed letter sent via certified mail. When you write to the bank, make sure you send a copy of what you wrote to the merchant so they can see the steps you've taken.
"When the bank writes back and denies it - which they usually do - don't accept that," he says, "Write back to them and say, 'This is a disputed debt,' underline 'disputed debt,' and say, 'I'm exercising my right under the Fair Credit Billing Act.'"
-----------------------------------
Notice the bolded words. 1) Credit card companies DO NOT automatically side with the buyer in every situation. 2) Credit card companies will almost always insist that the merchandise be returned BEFORE a charge back is allowed. 3) Credit card companies have a time limit in which to file a charge back. The horror stories where someone gets a charge back many months later is usually because the payment service was asleep at the wheel and only woke up to the charge back after it was too late to defend it. Then they try to pass the results of their incompetence on to the seller.
posted on August 1, 2001 07:17:41 AM new
Right. If PayPal was months behind in processing chargeback claims, how would anyone know?
PayPal as usual foists off blame to the vendor investigating the chargeback, but a seller does have rights. They can win chargebacks. The woman with the handbag - I find it hard to believe she "lost" the chargeback. Sounds more like PayPal "lost" her response defending the chargeback and she lost by default.
posted on August 1, 2001 07:53:29 AM new
Still no update from PayPal on this situation? They must really be keeping everybody there busy stocking the shelves of their new warehouse with all the chargeback returns that are coming in.
posted on August 1, 2001 09:47:22 AM new
Oh boy, another one that makes me debate losing the bidding and sales and just refusing to use PP from here on. I've already tried to cover myself by not letting them have either a CC number or bank account number, and by withdrawing funds anywhere north of a couple hundred bucks.
However, I can see this possible scenario now: Somewhere along the way I accept PP for an unusually large sale like $1000. Like this situation, postal insurance doesn't come into it, item is received w/o damage, customer seems satisfied. Three months later, with me having an account balance of say $100, the unjustified or fraudulent chargeback hits, my $100 vanishes, and my PP account is "suspended" or whatever pending my coming up with $900.
So, Damon, if a seller chooses to fight you or refuses to pay, is it then the case that the suspended account sits there like some sort of mutated carnivorous plant, hissing "Feeeed me!", swallowing any and all further payments beamed to my email despite all attempts by me to scream to buyers NOT to use PP with me any more? Like, even months later snatching payments sent by bidders who recall that I ONCE accepted PP so they try paying that way again, ignoring my TOS text saying "DO NOT USE PP WITH ME!!!"
I can certainly imagine humongous feedback and goodwill problems when various buyers' $10 and $20 payments vanish into the ether despite my warnings not to beam me payments. What does the seller do then? Send the item anyway, endlessly losing $10 at a time, or tell the buyer, "Tough, hit me with a neg, you idiot, I told you not to use PP."
Or do you list an exhaustive discussion in your TOS that makes you sound like Gary Condit's lawyer? Brrrrrrr
posted on August 1, 2001 04:29:40 PM new
If the implication here is that PayPal never fights chargebacks then a visit to eBay's Billpoint board should convince you that they have the same people in charge of that function. Come to think of it I've heard some similar stories about PayDirect, not to mention numerous other examples of anecdotal evidence on the boards. Suuuurrree the card companies don't side with their users in most cases.
That's why you see several major card issuers making a big deal of their $0 liability on internet sales for consumers. It's a cheap guarantee when the sellers are the ones that really pay. Having the consumers merchant bank making the final decision is like letting the prosecuter in a murder case also act as judge and jury, the verdict should come as no surprise. I could be wrong though, after all the banking industry is so forthright and consumer friendly.
posted on August 1, 2001 04:55:41 PM new
PayPal sent an email on June 25, which included the following:
Just follow a few simple precautions and you can stay chargeback free.
along with a link to PayPal's Seller Protection Policy, including the following:
-------------------------------------
Most payment companies simply pass on 100% of the transaction liability to the seller. PayPal is different. We give sellers the opportunity to protect themselves from liability.
We can do this because we know that if you follow certain guidelines you dramatically reduce the risk that you are dealing with a fraudulent buyer. They are:
Be a Verified Premier or Verified Business Account (U.S.)
Ship to the buyer's Confirmed Address
Retain reasonable proof-of-shipment that can be tracked online
Ship tangible goods
Only accept single payments from single PayPal accounts
Ship to domestic (U.S.) buyers at U.S. addresses
-------------------------------------
Their email suggests that you can "stay chargeback free" if you just follow "a few simple precautions". Note that nary a word is said about the "quality of merchandise" chargeback issue (and lack of protection thereof), which is a big enough loophole to fly the space shuttle through.
posted on August 1, 2001 05:01:04 PM new
Mine has super vague copy that basically promises absolutely nothing.
"PayPal gives its sellers a way to stay safe from costly chargebacks with our Seller Protection Policy...PayPal wants to protect our sellers against chargebacks due to fraud...We give sellers the opportunity to protect themselves from liability."
posted on August 1, 2001 08:04:41 PM newthis topic (PayPal getting involved in a quality of merchandise dispute) is probably going to require some reconsideration. Or maybe not- who knows for sure?
Should I repeat?
PayPal has never been involved in a quality of merchandise dispute. Never.
Don't confuse passing a non-protected chargeback along with getting involved in the dispute.
posted on August 1, 2001 08:36:04 PM new
I would argue that when they physically accept an item, returned by a buyer which the seller refused to receive, then they are getting involved in the chargeback. It distorts the seller's decision to refuse the returned item. The seller may have had good reason to do so. Perhaps the seller could have pursued a fraud case against the buyer, who charged back an item while still maintaining possession of it. It any case, it is the wrong thing to do, no matter what kind of good intentions PayPal had. I hope that this policy changes. PayPal is NOT an escrow service and there is no reason for them to handle merchandise.
Moreover, if they neglected to 'go-to-bat' for the seller, and allowed the charge-back to go through uncontested, then they are involving themselves in the chargeback through neglect.
Both of these issues need to be dealt with: They need to refuse any returned items from buyers; and they need to make a serious effort to provide the seller the means to defend his sale.
posted on August 1, 2001 09:29:11 PM new
SnowDog2001, consider that being involved in the chargeback is forced upon PayPal. Being involved in a quality of merchandise dispute (in the sense that PayPal might make a winner-loser decision) is PayPal's choice, and PayPal has never chosen to involve itself in such disputes.
Yes, merchandise returned to PayPal creates a mess for everyone. This mess is caused by credit card laws, not PayPal. Some credit card banks require the merchandise to be returned to PayPal for the buyer to receive the chargeback. Even if PayPal were to refuse to receive such items, the chargeback would remain unchanged. Thus, the policy to return the item to a responsible seller makes sense, particularly when the item is of significant value.
posted on August 1, 2001 09:33:40 PM newPayPal is involved in the dispute.
mrpotatoheadd, I've posted the more concise definition here before, but the previous posting includes it again. PayPal does not pick the winner in a quality of merchandise dispute.
Ever.
If the credit card company picks a winner, that's between the buyer, seller, and credit card company. While such situations are indeed messy, PayPal behaves responsibly in such cases.
posted on August 1, 2001 09:57:16 PM newPayPal does not pick the winner in a quality of merchandise dispute.
You're changing your story.
I didn't say anything about "picking a winner", and neither did you (until just now). Your exact quote was:
PayPal has never been involved in a quality of merchandise dispute. Never.
Telling a buyer to send an item to PayPal, and having in their possesion both the seller's money and merchandise is being involved, no matter how you slice it.
posted on August 2, 2001 08:38:56 AM newYou're changing your story.
I'm not, but if you choose to think so, I can't stop you. If you look at where that quote came from, you'll see that I was responding to a poster who wanted PayPal to pick him the winner in a quality of merchandise dispute.
posted on August 2, 2001 08:49:07 AM newI would argue that when they physically accept an item, returned by a buyer which the seller refused to receive, then they are getting involved in the chargeback. It distorts the seller's decision to refuse the returned item. The seller may have had good reason to do so. Perhaps the seller could have pursued a fraud case against the buyer, who charged back an item while still maintaining possession of it.
snowdog, I just read this again, and I don't really think you mean what you said about fraud. The story in question does not involve fraud. It may involve buyer's remorse misdescribed as a quality of merchandise dispute, and that may not be ethical, but it is not fraud.
Seller in a credit card transaction MUST accept the goods in return. Or, more correctly, a refusal to accept the goods in return will ultimately be interpreted as support for buyer's claim. Such a result surely is not in anyone's best interest except perhaps the unhappy buyer.
The belief that seller has some right to say "no returns" seems at the core of your concern. That just isn't so when a credit card is used. Blame the laws, not PayPal for this mess.
posted on August 2, 2001 09:06:52 AM newWhen PayPal tells a buyer to send an item they are issuing a chargeback for to PayPal
mrpotatoheadd, I've been reading this thread over again. It seems that your complaint is very similar to snowdog's. That PayPal is somehow "allowing" buyers to return stuff.
PayPal does not tell unhappy buyers to send the merchandise to PayPal. PayPal has an address, as the charging merchant. In order to satisfy some credit card company terms, the buyer must return the merchandise to the merchant. If the buyer sends the merchandise to PayPal totally at buyer's own motivation, then PayPal ends up with the merchandise.
PayPal cannot stop this process. Their participation is essentially involuntary, passive. To the extent that they seem to facilitate it by actually having an address, this is purely because the alternative does not work, in the sense that it does not protect PayPal or the seller from a chargeback.
posted on August 2, 2001 09:21:14 AM newTheir participation is essentially involuntary, passive.
-------------------------------------
thepaypal (0) (view author's auctions)
1:50pm July 26, 2001 (#24 of 578)
Hi,
The Seller Protection Program does not protect against merchandise quality claims. The chargeback team, so the buyer did not get the merchandise, asked for the item to be shipped to us (that way they don't get to keep the money and merchandise from the transaction).
Please feel free to contact me. I will have someone from the chargeback team work on this issue with you.
posted on August 2, 2001 01:31:47 PM new
mrpotatoheadd, you're seizing on the wording rather than what was said.
PayPal has exactly two choices in a quality of merchandise chargeback situation: accept the merchandise, or refuse the merchandise.
Neither choice will prevent the chargeback.
If PayPal refuses the merchandise, the buyer can both keep the merchandise and get the chargeback.
If PayPal accepts the merchandise, PayPal can in turn return it to seller.
I'm not pretending to speak for Damon, but I suggest that this was what Damon meant. PayPal was making the best of a situation totally out of PayPal's control.
posted on August 2, 2001 01:48:07 PM newPayPal has exactly two choices in a quality of merchandise chargeback situation: accept the merchandise, or refuse the merchandise.
I'm not disputing that.
Neither choice will prevent the chargeback.
I'm not disputing that.
PayPal refuses the merchandise, the buyer can both keep the merchandise and get the chargeback.
I'm not disputing that.
PayPal accepts the merchandise, PayPal can in turn return it to seller.
I'm not disputing that.
You said:
PayPal does not tell unhappy buyers to send the merchandise to PayPal.
and I posted a copy of damon's post which directly contradicts that claim:
The chargeback team, so the buyer did not get the merchandise, asked for the item to be shipped to us...
Now, if you want to pull a Clinton and debate what the meaning of the word "involved" is, or insist that when PayPal's chargeback team specifically asks a buyer to send an item to PayPal, they're only passively involved, well... I guess that's your perogative.
posted on August 2, 2001 01:50:58 PM newPayPal has exactly two choices in a quality of merchandise chargeback situation
I third choice (it would seem to me) would be to give the seller all the information they have about a pending charge back, gather information from the seller that might refute it, and then go to bat for their customer trying to fight it. But since part of their TOU says:
PayPal DOES NOT act as the agent of either party in any transaction or resulting dispute
posted on August 2, 2001 02:13:16 PM newI third choice (it would seem to me) would be to give the seller all the information they have about a pending charge back, gather information from the seller that might refute it,
There is no refutation possible. If the buyer is disappointed in the quality of the merchandise, buyer is allowed to return the merchandise and get the charge removed.
posted on August 2, 2001 02:49:00 PM newThere is no refutation possible. If the buyer is disappointed in the quality of the merchandise, buyer is allowed to return the merchandise and get the charge removed
There isn't? If I read this story right, the seller in this case has an email from the buyer where her complaint was not "quality of merchadise", but that a simular item went for less money. It looks like the seller used "quality of merchandise" as an out, not as a legit reason. I would think that with proof that they buyer first tryed to get a partial refund because she thought she paid too much and only when that didn't work was a complaint made about "quaility of merchandise", that it could have been disputed.
posted on August 2, 2001 02:54:40 PM newI would think that with proof that they buyer first tryed to get a partial refund because she thought she paid too much and only when that didn't work was a complaint made about "quaility of merchandise", that it could have been disputed.
A seller on another message board who claims to have a merchant account said that they had encountered the same situation, and that the dispute was dropped in the seller's favor after presentation of documentation which supported the seller's claim.
