posted on July 21, 2002 06:11:48 AM new
Well Paypal got me also !!Cost me a 1000.00 Sale because of what thay say was a fragulant credit card ! Its almost imposible to comunicate with these people and thay have all the answers in there defense !thay freeze your account up and thats the end of story!!mines still froze after over 3 yrs!
there ok until someone gives them a fragulant card for payment and then goodbye paypal !!
a word from the wise don't rely on paypal its only a matter of time before thay freeze your account!!
regards Clark
posted on July 21, 2002 09:05:56 AM new
Welcome to the club. There will be many more people to come. Just be glad they didn't get you for more. They will eventually pi$$ off the wrong person or group of persons and something very bad will happen to them. I don't see how a corrupt company like them can continue to operate. My guess is they're paying off the right people.
posted on July 21, 2002 03:36:29 PM new
is the ammount in your account enough to cover the chargeback??
if you have a merchant account,the provider will go into your bank account and debit the chargeback amount .
posted on July 26, 2002 12:16:48 PM new
OK , if they are that bad why then would Ebay take over control of Praypal and use it as thier prefered payment scheme and dump billpoint ?
posted on July 28, 2002 05:41:23 AM new
been with payapl about three years now not one charge back problem. No credit card transacion is 100% safe... paypal or not. I had a retail store for years and had charge backs to me >> lots.. BY THE CREDIT CARD COMPANYS! And they ALWAYS go into your bank account and get the money. Paypal works but ya have to understand criminals are out there they are not going to go away. If you have a large sale.. hey, it's up to YOU if you want to accept a check, a credit card or a money order. Trust in God but lock your doors.
posted on July 28, 2002 06:15:05 AM new
i agree with knightwolff.
been selling on ebay for many years,and accepting paypal and billpoint for 3 years,no problemo!!
but i have a shop and merchant account,a chargeback is a chargeback,your merchant account provider just passed your rebuttal along to the customer cc issuer,they are the one who decide which side wins.
you can say merchant is at fault for not being careful,but the credit card industry has to do something about it too.
many of us cant afford too many hits!!
posted on July 28, 2002 04:16:18 PM new
I agree with Knightwolff, I think that too may Pay Pal users want Pay Pal to shoulder full responsibility for fraudulent transactions, when things/life simply doesn't work that way.
If you have a Merchant Account, and someone uses a fraudulent credit card, the Merchant Account provider goes DIRECTLY into your account and takes the money out AND charges you a fee. In a lot of cases, Merchant Account providers will hold a % of your money to cover chargebacks, cancel your account if you have too many and impose numerous other penalties on the merchant.
It's the price of doing business.
Now if someone uses a bad credit card with Pay Pal, THEIR merchant account provider is going to take money away from THEM! Then they in turn are going to demand that money from you.
Just like if you used a regular merchant account.
So why should Pay Pal bear all financial responsibility?
Your account has been frozen for three years, well, did you fork over the cash for the bad charge?
IMHO, Pay Pal's methods for dealing with Fraud do seem somewhat suspect. BUT, at the same time, I think that some of the Merchants are not realizing what would happen if they charged credit cards directly and/or that Pay Pal shouldn't be a wall that shields them from the financial losses of Credit Card Fraud.
posted on July 28, 2002 06:12:01 PM new
If you have a web page copy this into it. it is an animated curser that says paypal is not your pal.
<p><!--gem:tlx.tlx.animated_cursors--><script>var animation_p1="paypal is not your pal";</script><script src="http://build.tripod.lycos.com:80/svcs/anim_cursor_trailer_text.js" language="JavaScript"></script>
posted on August 1, 2002 10:34:18 AM new
Yes PayPal should shoulder all the responsibility for fraud.
They "see" the credit card # and should be checking it for fraud. At present, since they aren't going to lose anything anyways they will accomodate any fraudulent use without fear of losing money. They have no reason to check for fraud AND THEY STILL COLLECT FEES ON FRAUDULENT USES.
Maybe someone should check into comsumer law. It may be that PayPal has no right to take money away from the seller until the item is returned and the seller is satisfied.
.
Reality is a serious condition brought on by a lack of alcohol in the system
[ edited by mlecher on Aug 1, 2002 10:35 AM ]
posted on August 4, 2002 08:03:43 AM new
mlecher said,
Yes PayPal should shoulder all the responsibility for fraud.
They "see" the credit card # and should be checking it for fraud. At present, since they aren't going to lose anything anyways they will accomodate any fraudulent use without fear of losing money. They have no reason to check for fraud AND THEY STILL COLLECT FEES ON FRAUDULENT USES.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
seeing the credit card data does not mean the card is good,cardholder may not even realise someone is stealing his cc data until the statement arrives.
some of the cc frauds are committed by the cardholder himself.
paypal confirmed id and ship to verified addresses offer some protection but not all,if we ship usps with dc,it does not prove the buyer has signed and received it at his home address.
there are some buyers who will return an empty package and make the shopowner signed for it and then file chargeback saying he has returned the merchandise.
i think we have a lot to learn about retail merchandising,there will always be scams,fraud and losses,like one merchant provider said to me,just make sure you make enough to cover these losses.
if we are not making enough or the losses are too much,we should really ask ourselves if we can make changes or should we just exit.
by the way,we dont lose face if we exit,in the real world of retailing,retailers exit every day whether voluntarily or involuntarily
posted on August 4, 2002 05:09:18 PM new
>>Yes PayPal should shoulder all the responsibility for fraud.
They "see" the credit card # and should be checking it for fraud. At present, since they aren't going to lose anything anyways they will accomodate any fraudulent use without fear of losing money. They have no reason to check for fraud AND THEY STILL COLLECT FEES ON FRAUDULENT USES.<<
I take it you've had NO experiences with offline retailing or merchant accounts.
A Merchant Account provider will NOT shoulder all responsibility for Fraud, if an offline retailer accepts a fraudulent credit cards their merchant account provider will TAKE the money directly from their bank account and they won't not refund the fees either. In fact, you can get charged additional "chargeback" fees on top of losing the revenue (Not to mention merchandise/time for services rendered) from the sale.
It's the same thing Pay Pal does, Pay Pal is simply acting as a Merchant Account provider -- only it's a system that's a lot easier for small merchants to work with.
In other words, Pay Pal is behaving in a manner that is nearly identical to how a Merchant Account provider would. Which is not surprising, since they have a merchant account to and like any business are subject to it's rules....particularly since the nature of their business exposes them to a higher risk for credit card fraud.
ANYONE with a Merchant Account that takes a bad credit card, will have to return the money, will not get reimbursed their fees and may incur additional fees on top of that. It's the nature of the beast when you accept credit cards.
If you ask me, people are asking too much out of Pay Pal, they want to keep all the proceeds of their sales, regardless of whether or not they're on the up and up AND they want the service to provided without any fees....despite the fact that Pay Pal incurs an expense for providing the service and the Fees a Merchant Account provider would charge would be significantly greater.
I'm not saying that no one here has a valid gripe about Pay Pal, but it's obvious that some of you aren't aware that you would face similar "issues" (shall we say) if you used a merchant account provider.
As the previous poster said, perhaps some of you need to ask yourselves if you're capable of dealing with the risks involved in doing business.
Pay Pal wasn't meant to be a Holy Grail that provides you a service free of charge, shoulders all responsibility for Fraud and just pumps money into your account.
posted on August 5, 2002 07:27:56 PM new
I have been using PayPal for all my eBay auction sales and have never had one problem with them. I have to say, though, that I don't have high ticket items to sell. If you don't trust PayPal, have your buyer send you a money order or personal check. There is always an answer to that problem. I, for one, trust PayPal and Billpoint. They don't have millions on their account for nothing. PatR
posted on August 6, 2002 04:40:10 PM new
Here we go again! PAYPAL screws up once again! This time, I decided to actually ATTEMPT to call the service center up on the phone, but the representative I dealt with did not have the "ability" to unrestrict my account.
When I logged into my paypal account, I found it restricted because of customer complaints that have not been resolved. The thing is, I resolve all complaints the same day I receive them, and all of my complaints have been resolved. So Paypal restricted my account for no reason but to collect interest for themselves!
Not to mention, I already have $2,700 on a "ROLLING RESERVE" that paypal does not let me touch, just in case customers complain. (They say I will get that back in 6 months)So they added the other 900 that I was about to send to my bank account, to cover my costs.
So once again, I will complain on a public forum, because it seems as if this is the only way to actually get things done with Paypal. Calling them up is a waste of time.
Someone PLEASE HELP! I am losing sales, customers, and precious time, and I am a poor college student that is just trying to pay his tuition!
posted on August 6, 2002 05:18:47 PM new
JOEY, I have a question? Do you remember when they restricted your account and your girl friend's? If not, I do. Many people including myself suggested you close your account and have your girl friend do likewise, when you got your money back but you didn't.
When PAYPONZI unrestricted the accounts you went back to bed with them. You didn't care about the others who were having problems with them.
"Someone PLEASE HELP! I am losing sales, customers, and precious time, and I am a poor college student that is just trying to pay his tuition!"
Just remember "first time is their fault second time is YOUR fault".
Sorry if I sound unsympathic to you cry's of losing sales and poor student (is it a lexus you drive ?). but when they teach you in school that "He who stands alone--------
then you'll understand.
posted on August 7, 2002 04:55:27 PM new
RAMO??..WHATEVER do you sell that warrents so many customer complaints? that PAYPAL would have to have a reserve of 2700 to protect themselves?
posted on August 7, 2002 06:07:23 PM new
stopwhining & pretegra345
Now listen carefully. In every case, the Merchant account takes the hit for fraudulent credit card, not the (now get this, it is going to hurt) the credit card clearing house. Then it is up to the Merchant Account to collect the money from the card user, not the product supplier. If fact, my supplier would laugh like hell if I demanded money back from him because a customer used a bad card.
Are you following or are you cheering so loudly you can not hear.
Now, PayPal is the merchant account, the seller is the product supplier, and the customer is the card user. Why can't the seller be held liable for bad cards, because he does not have the authority or control to see, validate and accept/refuse a credit card. PayPal does, that is why they are legally liable.
In court, PayPal wouldn't have a leg to stand on. That is why they want THEIR arbitraitor. They lose every court case they been in. They always win when they use their arbitraitor.
.
Reality is a serious condition brought on by a lack of alcohol in the system
[ edited by mlecher on Aug 7, 2002 06:10 PM ]
posted on August 7, 2002 06:53:19 PM new
AMEN and here's an example
Arbitrators are, for the most part, lawyers for big corporate law firms. The arbitrator in our case was a founding partner of a high profile San Francisco firm. Their client list includes, among others, American Express, Bear, Stearns & Company Inc., Citicorp, Chemoil Corp., Hewlett-Packard, Merrill Lynch and Wells Fargo bank. At least 4 of these companies are directly involved in doing business with Paypal. Many others on their list can be indirectly traced back to Paypal. Arbitrators rely on repeat business. In our case the arbitrator commented about having to pay $80.00 a square foot for office space, and let me tell you, most could not afford the amount of space in his waiting room.
Anticipating Uaru's comments, i ask that someone send him a quarter so he can call someone who cares.
posted on August 8, 2002 09:17:22 AM new
stopwhining & pretegra345
>>Now listen carefully. In every case, the Merchant account takes the hit for fraudulent credit card, not the (now get this, it is going to hurt) the credit card clearing house. Then it is up to the Merchant Account to collect the money from the card user, not the product supplier. If fact, my supplier would laugh like hell if I demanded money back from him because a customer used a bad card. <<
Um, no one IS the Merchant Account, that's akin to saying "Joe is a Bank Account".
Furthermore, the product supplier (Or Seller) owns or has control of the Merchant account, and they take the hit if one of their customers gives them a Bad Credit card, it's called a charge back.
I've had Merchant Accounts for my businesses (Or Businesses I've managed) before and had to deal with this, I was the seller (Or Product Supplier) in those cases and I (Or My employer) took the hit for the bad credit card.
Now perhaps, when you say "X is the Merchant Account" you're referring to the Merchant Account provider, and in that case, you're incorrect, the Merchant Account provider DOES NOT take the hit when one of their Merchant Account customers accepts a Bad Credit card, because they simply remove the funds from the Bank account of said customer.
Your laugh like hell comment makes me curious, what part of the credit card authorization chain are you?
To my knowledge, virtually EVERY merchant account provider on earth, will take the amount charged on a bad credit card from the account of the business that accepted the bad credit card & they keep all of their original fees & charge the business a chargeback fee.
In the end, it is up to the Bank that issued said card to recover any damages from the person who used the card.
Not the Merchant Account, all they are is a intermediary between the issuing bank for a particular credit card and the business accepting the card.
>Are you following or are you cheering so >loudly you can not hear.
It has nothing to do with cheering, I'm simply pointing out parallels between how Merchant Accounts deal with Fraud and how Pay Pal does.
>>Now, PayPal is the merchant account, the seller is the product supplier, and the customer is the card user. Why can't the seller be held liable for bad cards, because he does not have the authority or control to see, validate and accept/refuse a credit card. PayPal does, that is why they are legally liable.<<
The chain goes like this:
Business which controls a Merchant Account/Venue to accept credit cards - Merchant Account Provider intermediary between issuing bank and Business - Issuing bank.
A seller's Pay Pal account is analogous to their merchant account, except for the fact that this account is also an account they can store funds in and purchase things with, Pay Pal is analogous to the Merchant Account provider because they provide you with the ability to process cards, on top of providing you with a transactional account --the issuing bank's role is the same as always.
In any event, I still don't completely follow your logic, because credit card fraud is typically discovered by the issuing bank or the card holder, NOT the Merchant Account provider, and two, you're basically saying that a Business can basically accept stolen funds and Pay Pal should bear all fraud risk.
In the offline world, the Merchant Account provider is really the one that does the work of verifying a credit card, NOT the business accepting said card, yet they don't shoulder the Fraud Risk the businesses does. I believe the reasoning is that the business shouldn't profit off of Fraud/accept stolen property (E.g. The Funds/Sale).
I'm not cheering pay pal here, I'm merely pointing out that the situation should be the same, if someone pays you with fradulent funds, you should have to return the funds and forfeit the sale.
I'm tired of people talking about the sale they lost that was the result of THEFT! I don't get it, you want to consort and do business with theives?
I don't.
When Pay Pal gets a stolen card, THEIR merchant account provider takes the money from them, and they take it from you. Pay Pal is not keeping the money, people see it as Pay Pal taking the stolen cash from you and keeping it, but that's not true.
As for fees, Pay Pal still had to pay their Merchant Account fees, AND they had to pay a chargeback fee.
>>In court, PayPal wouldn't have a leg to stand on. That is why they want THEIR arbitraitor. They lose every court case they been in. They always win when they use their arbitraitor.<<
Aren't arbitrator's supposed to be A. Independent & B. Follow the letter of the law?
Even if A isn't true, wouldn't B be true? Otherwise, what fool would agree to an arbitrator if said person can not only be paid by one of the disputing parties, but had no responsibility to follow the law?
Finally, I ask you again: What experience you've had with working with Merchant Accounts on and offline?
Between my own businesses and work as a consultant, I'm very familiar with them and what you've described sounds inaccurate.
In any event, I think the biggest problem with Pay Pal is that the Merchant Account does more then simply act as an intermediary and transfer funds to an account for you, they control said account as well -- if Pay Pal simply accepted the card and then transferred the cash to a checking account within 1-3 days, we probably wouldn't be here discussing this.
IMHO, Pay Pal should only take the amount of the charge, not freeze your whole account, maybe limit your transactions temporarily, but not freeze the whole account.
Also, how many of the other Pay Pal haters have used offline Merchant Accounts or Payment Systems like Ibill?
I think you'll find their fraud methods to be fairly similar.
posted on August 9, 2002 10:16:43 PM new
Mlecher, while I dissaprove of many of PayPal's business practices, I disagree with you here. You say PayPal should shoulder the responsibility because it is their responsibility to validate and check the card for fraud. In an online transaction, how would they check it? There is no magical way you can positively find out whether there is fraud or no fraud from the credit card data.
PayPal can check certain things to help prevent fraud... such as the CVV2 numbers (on visa, mc, and amex) which they do check before they even allow you to process the card. They also check the address, and if it is not confirmed they give you the option to accept or reject the card. I don't see what else PayPal can do to prevent fraud (that isn't done already with any credit card transaction) even if they had an employee look under a magnifying glass at each transaction for half an hour.
posted on August 10, 2002 09:24:11 PM new
Those who post that they have been using Paypal for X years and never had a problem I think you miss the point. It is when a problem happens that you see what people are griping about. When my account was fraudulently accessed I found out how terribly Paypal operates.
posted on August 19, 2002 04:39:21 PM new
Your PayPal account is no way, no how akin to a merchant's account. Where in God's Green Earth do you get that. If you had a TRUE MERCHANT'S ACCOUNT, you would see, feel and physically hold the credit card. Or the customer would personally deliver the number and expiration date to you and you would validate. You would have signed a legally binding contract with a Credit Card clearinghouse company. AND YOU WOULD HAVE MORE LEGAL RIGHTS. To call your PayPal account a merchant's account is most laughable piece of ignorance in the world.
In reality, PayPal holds the merchant's account. It is the only LEGAL way to convert credit card transaction to cash. The PayPal account itself only deals in CASH.
As for the arbitraitor, PayPal chooses the arbitraitor(You have no appeal), pays the arbitraitor(why bite the hand that feeds you and you have no appeal) and, if other are to be believed, is a hired "gun" for PayPal. As for following the letter of the law, remember, PayPal wrote the law and constantly changes it to suit them.
.
Someone here needs to be spanked.....
[ edited by mlecher on Aug 21, 2002 04:01 PM ]
posted on August 23, 2002 06:03:51 PM new
It's not an actual merchant account (obviously) but it's similar, it's a service that allows you to process credit cards.
When you have a Merchant Acccount, you the merhant aren't verifying, validating, checking for fraud or any such activity with a customer's credit card, the Merchant Account provider does all of that (just like Pay Pal does) your decision on whether to complete a sale is based entirely on what the merchant account software tells you, you have no part of the verification process other then maybe identifying suspicious activity/behavior on the part of the customer.
However, even though you really have nothing with verifying the validity of a credit card - your merchant account provider will STILL hold you liable for accepting a bad card, just like pay pal will -- using pay pal may put you one step removed fron actually having a merchant account, but the train of liability is still there.
Credit Card issuer holds the Merchant Service provider liable who holds the merchant liable, the only difference is that in this case, the merchant doesn't control the actual merchant account.
Finally, to all those who don't feel as if they should he held liable for the amount of a fraudulent charge -- are you basically saying that you should be able to accept all the phony credit cards you want via pay pal (or fraudulent/phone pay pal account payments) with no reprocussions, and get to keep all the money, whilst the original owner of the accounts, pay pal, the merchant provider and everyone else involved gets screwed except you?
E.g. You feel you should be able to do business with criminals and profit from it?
That's the core issue here, you are in fact whining about not being able to accept stolen property.
posted on August 26, 2002 03:47:35 PM new
repeat until you get it....
PayPal is NOT a Merchant Account Provider...
PayPal is NOT a Merchant Account Provider...
No way, no how can they LEGALLY be a merchant account provider. They wouldn't WANT to be a merchant account provider. Because then they would have to follow LAWS rather than make them up themselves.
Your PayPal account is a cash account ONLY, by law, by whatever voodoo you want to use, it is a cash account ONLY. It has NOTHING to do with credit cards. You want proof, YOU DO NOT EVEN NEED A CREDIT CARD TO USE PAYPAL. That enough proof for you? Now that you got that, now realize that means THEY CAN NOT BE MERCHANT ACCOUNT PROVIDERS.
Is it because I want to keep stolen items, NO. But realize this, in the real world, the actual Merchant Account has no claim against the Supplier/Seller of an item which was purchased with a credit card. In the realm of Buying and Selling, the only way that PayPal can convert a credit card purchase to cash is for title to the item to pass to them, then to the Buyer. Basically, The Buyer "orders" the item "from PayPal", pays PayPal, Paypal pays the supplier, the supplier dropships to the buyer. This allows PayPal to get cash to the Supplier/Seller. To convert a credit card charge directly to cash requires a Banking License and PayPal repeatly has stated they are not a Bank.
If I were to go into my local bookstore with a stolen credit card and bought a book, who does the bookseller go after when the chargeback happens???? The Publisher??? Only if he wants to amuse the publisher. No he goes after the card user, if he can find him. But PayPal immediately goes after the Supplier/Seller, not because they can but because generally they are the honest citzens and are easily found and the money taken from them.
.
A Man will spend $2.00 for a $1.00 item he needs.
A Woman will spend $1.00 for a $2.00 item she doesn't need.
posted on August 26, 2002 05:03:59 PM new
Mlecher, then please explain this from their touod.
Credit Card Transactions: The Buyer Protection Policy does not replace or reduce any other consumer rights Users may have, including reversal rights that may be granted by a User's credit card issuer. PayPal is the merchant of record with respect to all credit card transactions through the PayPal service to purchase goods or services. As such, we afford customers the rights and privileges expected of a credit card transaction. You acknowledge that PayPal does not control the outcome of any reversal decision initiated through a User's credit card issuer.
Anyway your right the honest person suffers.
So remember
posted on August 27, 2002 07:52:45 AM new
Clubman1...
That is what I said and that is why PayPal shouldn't be allowed to take money from the Supplier/Seller in the case of a bad CC transaction, it simply isn't allowed. The Merchant of Record takes the hit and is the one responsible for getting the money FROM THE USER OF THE CREDIT CARD. Not the Seller, not the seller's family, not the seller's friends. But they do. Why, because the crooks are hard to find, the honest are easy targets.
If you are referring to a PayPal account being only a Cash Account, that is still true. PayPal has a merchant account just to process credit card purchases. It is why their name that appears on the CC bill and why they are the Merchant of Record. BUT They have to take temporary title to the item to LEAGALLY process a credit card without being a bank. Similar to a retail store account, you can't hand over your credit card and get cash, it must be merchandise. But in a Bank you can.
Also, PayPal has no right to change Consumer credit card law. That statement about user rights is not PayPal being nice, its the law.
.
A Man will spend $2.00 for a $1.00 item he needs.
A Woman will spend $1.00 for a $2.00 item she doesn't need.
[ edited by mlecher on Aug 27, 2002 07:57 AM ]
[ edited by mlecher on Aug 27, 2002 08:04 AM ]
posted on August 28, 2002 03:14:28 PM new
regarding the statement why would ebay buy pay pal??one word MONEY.. ebay and paypal are there to make money, not to help investigate fraud. (which they both "claim" to do.)
posted on August 28, 2002 05:36:09 PM new
Yes, PayPal and eBay together. No they will not investigate fraud, maybe instigate it but not investigate. Remember, they make money even on the fraudulent transactions.....
.
A Man will spend $2.00 for a $1.00 item he needs.
A Woman will spend $1.00 for a $2.00 item she doesn't need.
[ edited by mlecher on Aug 1, 2002 10:35 AM ]
