posted on September 20, 2001 10:53:08 AM new
I can well understand the complaints about Paypal and I would like to submit that my personal impression is that Paypal may be acting outside of consumer protection law with their policies and here is one example: as a buyer I received counterfeit goods from a seller in a transaction that I believe is outside of the law as the seller admitted that these goods were not genuine.
Selling grossly misrepresented goods or goods that are not what they claim to be is not a case of buyer beware, it is a case of fraud when the seller is informed and refuses to refund. Paypal has refused to refund me on the counterfeit goods claiming that they are not an "escrow agency" -- well as a consumer I never expected Paypal to act as an escrow agency, but I do expect some form of buyer protection, and evidently Paypal provides none.
In effect the customer service rep at Paypal admitted to me that Paypal has no real buyer protection policy because it is impossible for Paypal to act on a complaint of fraudulent goods and refund, even when the fraud is admitted by the seller in email, as in this case.
Interestingly, I learned some other facts from the customer service rep -- Paypal is evidently grossly misrepresenting their ability to protect against chargebacks to sellers. The Paypal customer service rep verbally represented that Paypal must act according to credit card company policy, regardless of Paypal's own published policy on chargeback protection; it is easy to show that the two policies are mutually exclusive under certain circumstances.
Bottom line: one can easily argue that Paypal's published avocation on protection from chargebacks is irrelevant to the 'real' policy, eg the policy as applied on chargebacks via the cc companies.
In summary my opinion after much investigation is that Paypal may be ignoring their real obligation to protect consumers, and I intend to further investigate whether Paypal might be operating outside of consumer proection law in this regard.
In addition I have learned that Paypal has n office in Palo Alto and that their headquarters *might be* in California -- the rep would not give me an address and the rep refused to respond when I asked for an address for legal service.
If anyone has the Paypal address for legal service OR the phone number of their corporate headquarters in Palo Alto I would very much appreciate being informed via this message board, or alternatively if the info can be posted on Cyberia-L listserv which is a legal message board monitored by attorneys (they are interested in this issue, at last from an academic point of view) OR I may be contacted via my email in the profile.
The only other address I have for Paypal is for a Peter Thiel (CEO) at PO Box 45950, Omaha NE 68145
posted on September 20, 2001 11:31:31 AM newIn summary my opinion after much investigation is that Paypal may be ignoring their real obligation to protect consumers...
This gets discussed a lot.
PayPal has no obligation to protect consumers from fraud, any more than a bank has an obligation to protect consumers who pay the crook by check.
Credit Card companies are required, by law, to protect consumers in such cases. Those rights remain intact, of course, when the credit card is used to fund a PayPal payment.
PayPal protects sellers who follow the rules from most credit card fraud, particularly from unauthorized use of a credit card and claims of non-receipt; PayPal absorbs any loss.
posted on September 20, 2001 02:50:14 PM new
I believe you are missing the point here and let's get it straight with regard to the real third-party. As a buyer when I undertake Paypal to make a payment on my behalf there are certain consumer protections that Paypal must follow, regardless of what third-party legal agreements Paypal has negotiated with the credit card company. For example when I report a case of fraud to Paypal, Paypal must act on that case and report back to me, because my contract to make this payment is with Paypal and not with the cc company. And what about cases where a credit card is not used? I certainly feel terrible for those individuals that may be victims of counterfeit goods because they have no hope of receiving a refund from Paypal, and in the below I document why this is wrong and why I feel that Paypal may be in violation of certain interstate commerce protections on this.
So firstly Paypal has not followed their published guidelines in my case because Paypal did not respond within the 30 days (with so much as a status on the case) as published on their web page, and this is a publicly published document created by Paypal. Why does Paypal not adhere to it's own published policies? Why should I feel any degree of confidence that Paypal is able to act responsibly when Paypal does not adhere to it's own stated policy? Logiclly, it does not follow, and Paypal should not be surprised at the degree of disappointment and frustration that Paypal members feel.
It seems that the legal liability for Paypal may arise when the buyer can prove that the seller knowingly sold counterfeit goods, and Paypal then fails to act in a reasonable manner. For example, in my case the seller admitted via email that the goods were counterfiet yet she refused to refund me. So when I forwarded email to Paypal on this I expect Paypal to undertake some reasonable legal responsibility on this and let the buyer know that they have investigated the seller in this matter; evidently this is not the Paypal policy according to one very rude and harried customer service rep. Btw I feel very sorry for your service rep as I supect she is underpaid, overworked, and obviously she has exceedingly poor company policy to work from.
In fact, the Paypal customer service rep says that an incidence like this must occur at least THREE TIMES before Paypal will act. Finally, the customer service rep and yourself (you obviously have some connection) virtually admits that Paypal has no buyer protection policy in-place as such. For example I have read of plenty of documented cases here on auctionwatch where Paypal has ultimately failed to refund buyers victimized with non-receipt of goods and the actual unauthorized use of credit cards is very small when compared to the actual incidence of seller fraud.
You also studiously avoid my question about the secrecy concerning Paypal's headquarters in Palo Alto -- why is this information secret? Does Paypal have something to hide? If not, then why not tell me the Paypal address for legal service - is that secret too? Well no, obviously not, I can get that info from the Secretary of State in California if I need to. It is also interesting that your address in Nebraska is merely a post office box -- by law you need to disclose the Corporate address, privately held or not -- is that not correct? So where can I find that information?
I am very disappointed at the exceedingly poor level of customer service provided by Paypal and I find the lax standards in your customer service department to be both alarming and depressing. On a personal level I would like to suggest that Paypal clean up it's act -- Paypal publishes policies that it evidently does not actually follow and the level of training of staff and the published information on the Paypal website appears woefully lacking on the face of it, and disastrously lacking when an actual problem occurs. You need to be aware that not everyone you are dealing with is uneducated in law and not everyone is happy to see an operation evidently posing as a psuedo-bank fail to provide any of the protections that a bank provides.
I for one would like to see some competition in this field as I sense a market gap exists here, and that Paypal is not totally adequate in that gap. Personally I think that any real bank out there should be able to fulfill many of the capacities that Paypal is addressing and would probably handle this business far more efficiently with a much higher level of customer service. eg I think that if there were a way for buyers and sellers to vote with their feet that in many cases they would do so.
posted on September 20, 2001 03:00:43 PM new
financial intermediaries whether paypal or your local bank do not rule over the content of the item,whether it is the wrong model of laptop or synthetic stone versus real stone etc.
you have to try to get it resolved with the seller,or local chamber of commerce or police,have you tried returning the item?
you cannot complain and sit on the item,can you return it and if you can get his signature,you can show it to your cc company
with the email where the seller admits it is counterfeit and that you have already returned the item.
just think if the financial middleman has to get involved,they will have to hire an army of experts to come and examine the goods-precious and semi precious stones,watches,antiques,leather,stone,pc,etc.
someone who used to work for a sports memorabilia shop said he saw his boss sits in the office and fake signatures all day long,he suggested find out which is the busiest day for ups delivery if he is a company and marked the package as free sample included,sent it via ups .
good luck
posted on September 20, 2001 07:00:32 PM new
You have totally missed the point. This is not a wrong model -- this is a counterfeit item equivalent to fake Rolex or a version of MS Windows produced illegally in China. There is an illegality of goods associated with this transaction, something that both you and the Wonderful Wizard of Paypal cannot appreciate. In addition I supplied proof to Paypal that the seller *knew* before the fact that the goods were counterfeit and Paypalhas ignored this evidence. The result stands to Paypal's discredit. -- sk
posted on September 20, 2001 08:49:02 PM new
if you bot it on ebay,ebay prohibits sales of counterfeit,have you contacted ebay?
i remember in other threads,paypal stated it does not get involved with content dispute.how would paypal know it is counterfeit??
you sound like a smart lady with a name like snipekiller,you must know all about ebay bidding and sniping.
this is my sixth year on ebay and i dont buy much ,if i do,it is usually an old out of print book or small items,if they dont pan out,then i just chalk it up to experience and move on.
posted on September 20, 2001 09:37:23 PM new
Lady? I am not a lady.
Anyway, once again and not to belabor the point, regardless of what Paypal says about content, they are not a carrier, and when any company is informed that their member may be involved in illicit activity that company has a responsibility to act.
To put this down to legal mumbo jumbo about how Paypal has no responsibility for content is like an airline arguing that it has no responsibility for carrying hijackers -- it does not work and the plane ultimately hits the building.
So I think this will be a very good test case -- at the very least it will be worth it to get some bored gavel-jockey out of his comfy seat in Palo Alto and down to the courthouse. I think I can make them sweat a little on this one, it may even have media potential if things were a little quieter.
posted on September 20, 2001 09:45:46 PM newI supplied proof to Paypal that the seller *knew* before the fact that the goods were counterfeit and Paypalhas ignored this evidence.
Read around a bit and you'll see a common result. PayPal does not get involved in quality of merchandise disputes. Ever. Period.
It's said right up front.
It's said as unambiguously as can be.
That means that PayPal does not consider evidence of such things one way or the other.
Ever.
Under any circumstances.
It you think about it for a bit, you'll come to understand that PayPal could not involve itself in such disputes even if they wanted to. There are two sides to every story. There are lies and damn lies. There are forgeries. And after all that, there are lawsuits. "Not gonna do it, wouldn't be prudent."
What PayPal DOES consider is a pattern of complaints regarding a seller. PayPal doesn't want ripoff sellers. But one dispute is not evidence of a ripoff seller.
posted on September 20, 2001 09:54:45 PM new
company & member?are you saying paypal is the company and the seller and buyer are members??
just as much as both seller and buyer are members of ebay,of western civilisation or if both enjoy good sushi,then the international sushi lovers society.
ebay likes to say it is just a venue and washes its hands over many squabbles among its members.
one cannot sell counterfeit on ebay,did you buy it on ebay,have you contacted ebay?
it seems that ebay should be the one you should be targeting for allowing counterfeit sold on its site
ebay always preaches buyer beware,if it sound too good to be true ,the it probably is .
there is another thread a person is being approached for an item ,seller wants 3000 while it sells in local store for 14.000 .
someone send 400 british pounds to romania for an american laptop.
posted on September 21, 2001 08:53:30 AM new
Finally and for this last time, this is NOT about quality -- it is about a violation of the law -- if anyone out there sells fraudulent goods with intent to defraud then that is a violation of local, state and federal statutes. I submit that if Paypal aids and abet that transaction and Paypal is later supplied proof that the seller provided goods with intent to defraud, then Paypal must take action versus their member seller engaged in such transactions and Paypal must be accountable. We seem to have a real problem in our society with accountability and personally I believe that the law is the only instrument of real use to answer this question.
In addition NOBODY here has addressed the question of poor customer service in Paypal, and Paypal's failure to live up to their own published standards, for example responding to buyer or seller complaints within 30 days.
Meanwhile let's stop the ridiculous palaver here and let a court of law decide this issue. I will keep the board posted on how the case progresses, first I need to get Paypal's address for service from the Secretary of State. Thanks,
posted on September 21, 2001 09:20:19 AM new
One other thing -- I do wish to apologize for my earlier metaphor on airlines -- this is a sensitive topic and I should have handled it more sensitively, once again my apologies on that.
I do think that the carrier analogy is appropriate, for example did you ever wonder why auctionwatch message center is well- moderated? It is to the credit of auctionwatch that they do accept responsibility for what they publish, and auctionwatch must maintain moderation at a significant expense to itself, but presumably less than the expense of lawsuits that might arise if the forum were not moderated.
Anyway, in spite of the ill-thought metaphor I used, I find it intensely disturbing that a financial institution like Paypal - or should we say psuedo-financial? -- can use the carrier/content argument as a convenient vehicle to avoid questions of accountability in the example of outright seller fraud.
I know it is a fine point and I doubt that it is appreciated in this forum, especially as the Paypal company itself or it's representatives seem to monitor this newsgroup, and it is quite obvious that Paypal is more interested in the positive comments about it than the criticism heading their way on the IMHO exceedingly poor policies and customer support that they maintain.
For more on law and the Internet:
[email protected] (The Law and Policy of Computer Communications;
Cyberspace Law/The Law of the Internet; telecommunications; formerly CYBERLAW,
then briefly CYBERLAW-L; then CYBERIA-L (The Law and
Policy of Computer Networks) on [email protected] until May 1996)
Send the following message to [email protected]:
subscribe cyberia-l Your Name
(you can also subscribe by sending a blank e-mail to
[email protected]; see related page and archives at
http://www.egroups.com/list/cyberia-l/info.html)
(archived at http://www.ljextra.com/mailinglists/cyberia-l/ or
http://mailmunch.law.cornell.edu/mhonarc/CYBERIA/ or
http://www.ljextra.com/forumpages/cyberia.html or
http://ibd.ar.com/EMailLists.html)
posted on September 21, 2001 10:03:54 AM new
i am not a paypal spokesperson or one who has worked in marketing for paypal,i am a veteran ebay seller,this is my sixth year selling on ebay.
the analogy of comparing paypal with the airline-i think ebay fits the bill better than paypal.ebay provides a venue for sellers to sell to buyers,both are members of ebay .
if ebay has done a good job it should have booted the seller and his counterfeit goods off ebay and you would not have been taken.
you still have not answered the question-
why not take on ebay as ebay is prime suspect in allowing seller to hawk counterfeit ?
have you returned the item?
if not,i would suggest you return the item.
it is hard for anyone to mediate for you if you continue to own the item in question,it is hard to interpret personal motive or counterfeit versus real in cyberspace,how does a third party know this is truly a counterfeit,you said the seller admitted it is,is it a peice of email ? is it a sworn testimony?
what happens if the seller comes back and say thats not his email,he never admit such thing or someone has been using his pc or email address?or he said you did a switch-a-roo on him??
i have 2 paypal phone numbers,dont know if they are still good-
1-888-204-4481,1 877 6paypal.
one last question-with a name like snipekiller,did you snipe the item in the last few minutes,did you pay less than the retail value,say a lot less?that should be a good clue as to the authenticity of the item.
posted on September 21, 2001 10:46:13 AM newfor example did you ever wonder why auctionwatch message center is well- moderated?
It's not because it would be illegal to do otherwise. For an entertaining counter example, check out f'dcompany.com. Other forums have been taken over by spammers.
posted on September 21, 2001 10:50:20 AM newI find it intensely disturbing that a financial institution like Paypal - or should we say psuedo-financial? -- can use the carrier/content argument as a convenient vehicle to avoid questions of accountability in the example of outright seller fraud.
Can you discuss how banks might be responsible to involve themselvs when a check is used in a fraudulent purchase?
posted on September 21, 2001 11:28:36 AM new
Check fraud is a felony and all states have laws about check fraud -- banks find this intensely interesting and check fraud with intent generally involves law enforcement.
Btw to ahahawllah: ebay had no interest in the countefeit nature of the goods for technical reasons beyond the scope of my article. ebay's legal team has some pretty good clear documentation in place that does not conflict with their policy and is less objectionable to me than Paypal, just my opinion. IMHO the Paypal documentation on this issue is very very poor.
As for returning the goods and getting a signature for the parcel, that is a no-brainer -- why ask the question? To make it more interesting I thought about getting a signature for an empty parcel, but decided to return a counterfeit of the counterfeit (photocopy) so that I may retain the original in my possession for evidence reasons.
Meanwhile I find that this subject is escalating -- I have been contacted in email by several different parties and they have all experienced problems with Paypal, Paypal's documentation, Paypal support and Paypal's customer service, and the problem seems to be much more serious than I anticipated.
Therefore please watch this space while I act as something of a carrier for complaints about Paypal. I will merely pass on the information that I am given in email, and btw perhaps I do not need to be accountable -- just like Paypal is not accountable as a carrier? We seem to have an interesting topic here -- imagine a payment service claiming to be merely a 'carrier' for payments without accountability!
Presumably as a securities lawyer Mr Thiel himself understands the implications of being a carrier -- but a carrier for financial transactions might equate to something like a clearing house? I will break out the banking law books on that one -- I seriously doubt that Paypal can qualify as a clearing house; the difficulty is that this may be some special case in Nebraska where. SK2
posted on September 21, 2001 11:46:56 AM new
looks like the plot is thickening,is there a sherlock holmes on aw board??
contemplating sending a counterfeit of the counterfeit and keeping the original counterfeit as a piece of evidence for future action?/
and getting a signed signature that the seller has received the original counterfeit when in fact he recieves a photocopy of the counterfeit!!
if the seller of counterfeit is reading this thread,he must be shaking in his boots.
as operation infinite justice unfolds,auxilaries of all stripes and shapes will be called upon to support the war,recall how genghis kwan,emperor of all men swept across europe with his best soldiers on horseback,carpenters,cooks,tailors,doctors,shamen,blacksmith follow in strides.
today we would be calling upon engineers of all stripes and principles,how many legal engineers aka lawyers will be in the operation??
[ edited by hwahwahwahwa on Sep 21, 2001 11:51 AM ]
posted on September 21, 2001 11:49:55 AM newCheck fraud is a felony and all states have laws about check fraud -- banks find this intensely interesting and check fraud with intent generally involves law enforcement.
If you believe you were the victim of a crime, call the police.
posted on September 27, 2001 02:40:09 PM new
Issueing bad checks is a crime, However prosecuteors are overwhelmed with bad check writers, in this state (where I reside) anything under $500 will not even be concidered, but people in the county attorneys office have informent me that the check has to be over $1500 or less than 5 checks totaling $1500, furthermore they have to be written to a business. They will refuse the case for "lack of evidence" if a bum check is written to an individual. By the way I have several bum checks that have been written to me some in amounts over $500.
I chalk it up to the cost of doing business. Write some letters, make some calls, thats all it is worth. Pursueing it is a excersize in futility, and harping on the fact that it is against the law is a superfulous point, the real question is do they pursue criminals for that crime in your jurisdiction.
posted on September 29, 2001 04:46:56 AM new
If payment services had to be held responsible for the actions of those receiving money through their service, then how would a service like Western Union be able to survive?
I use Western Union as an example because with a Western Union transaction, it becomes obvious that the payment service does not have access to the money once the payment is complete. Likewise, Paypal, as much as I hate them, does not necessarily have access to the money after it has been transferred. They are not the judge and jury in every dispute, and even though a customer may provide 'evidence' that a seller has committed fraud, the case for fraud is not proven without being sent through a court of law. As PayPal is not the seller, not the judge, and not the jury, they should make no decisions outside of their terms of service, regarding disputes between buyers and sellers, even if a buyer claims that a seller is acting illegally.
SnowDog
[ edited by SnowDog2001 on Sep 29, 2001 04:49 AM ]
-- can use the carrier/content argument as a convenient vehicle to avoid questions of accountability in the example of outright seller fraud.