posted on January 21, 2002 03:24:50 PM new
In a letter from X.Com, owner of Paypal, to its business users, it states:
"X.com's new Buyer Protection Guarantee is simple: if a buyer pays a seller who
has been Verified by X.com, then we will guarantee the buyer's money back in
case the seller turns out to be fraudulent. This Guarantee is like free insurance for
buyers, and will make it much more attractive for buyers to pay Verified sellers
with PayPal. "
Paypal also made the following statement to Bankrate.com: "PayPal is now "confirming" its users' accounts
by testing whether they have been linked to
bank accounts, which require Social Security
numbers and signature cards to open. If you
send money to a confirmed PayPal account,
"you're 100 percent protected against fraud,"
says Elon Musk, head of X.com, which owns
PayPal. "If there's a clear case of fraud then we
will be happy to make a refund.""
posted on January 21, 2002 03:34:41 PM new
Paypal also boasted of it's buyer protection to the Wall Street Journal:
"Aug 1, 2000 6:37 AM PT
PayPal guarantees against fraud
PayPal says it will now reimburse any person using its service who is
defrauded when dealing with a vendor that PayPal has determined is
verified, according to the Wall Street Journal. PayPal is the first of the dozen
or so major online person-to-person payment services to offer this type of
protection to users. -- ZDNet News"
I sent $400 to a "verified" seller who has turned out to be fraudulent. Paypal is telling major news media that I will be refunded the money, even if they can't recover the money from the "seller". I have filed complaint #309768. I hope Paypal is not using the Wall Street Journal's respectability to try to boost their own credibility by broadcasting lies. If Paypal doesn't honor their promises, the WSJ should publish a retraction to keep their credibility untarnished.
posted on January 21, 2002 04:17:32 PM new
those promises must have been made in the go go days where every dot.com is preparing to go public,flushed with venture capital money.then dot com turns into dot bomb.
no one can promise something like that,a verified seller with ss and bank account number,what if there is no fund in the bank account?what if the seller closes the account,how much does it take to go after him??
stay tuned,i think the prime venues where individuals can sell will eventually be asking for more,escrow money ,good faith deposit??
the three prime sites such as yahoo,amzn and ebay can afford to be choosey .
posted on January 22, 2002 07:10:48 AM new
Paypal enjoyed a lot of free positive publicity boasting about the superiority of their protections against fraud as compared to other payment services. Was there ever a press release when they yanked these protections? Are they technically at fault? No. Have they intentionally created false impressions about their security at the expense of the consumer. Without doubt. I will lobby Wall Street Journal to expose this fraud and deceipt.
posted on January 22, 2002 10:29:58 AM new
yip you get the impression paypal is safe and feel that safety, well it did!, until there is a problem and you find out truely how unsafe it really is
The Buyer Complaint Process (in its current form )has been active since November 11,2000. The changes were placed on the web site, as well as emailed to users. The terms of use, as well as the HELP section, do describe the process and its limitations.
Verification is in place to further support the identity of the individual you are sending payment to. It does not, however, guarantee that the party will behave morally.
Buyers have to use some discretion when sending payment via any medium (cash,check,money order,etc) before sending payment for any good. There is no way that PayPal can verify if the party has the item in stock, that it in the condition you want, or that they will deliver it in a timely manner.
I would recommend reviewing the SECURITY section on our site on how to avoid potential issues with sellers.
posted on January 23, 2002 10:29:35 PM new
The Wall Street Journal entry is old. (Aug 2000.) What date was the X.com statment made? I imagine they also predate the TOS change.
Like Damon said- the current TOS has been in effect since Nov. 11, 2000. It went from a guarantee of protection against fraud- to a guarantee of nothing.
Draw them 'em in in droves, change the rules, then f'ck 'em.
posted on February 14, 2002 03:26:40 PM new
Paypal's verification process doesn't require any validation of address or name when adding credit or bank accounts after the fact. This more than anything else is the source of most problems involving fraud and Paypal. When Paypal allows malicious users to mascarade as "verified users" and register stolen credit cards with no validation of name or address it is facilitating fraud. Paypal has a great service if its Execs would just get a clue and start oiling the "squeaky wheels" else Paypal will be lucky to survive let alone have a successful IPO. Its a real pity, such a great idea in the hands of arrogant SOBs that think the little people who made the success of Paypal possible are just "squeaky wheels"...
