posted on October 2, 2002 06:16:14 AM new
PayPal(TM), Inc. (Nasdaq:PYPL - News) today announced that it has surpassed the 20 million account holder mark, which is double the number of registered members it had just one year ago. In addition, the company expects that by mid-October more than $10 billion will have been sent by PayPal members through the network since launch of the service in October 1999.
posted on October 2, 2002 09:01:27 AM new
damn I wonder if that number represents the account I just closed hahahahahahhahha or does that number represent all the new customers I brought paypal from our search engine advertising when we offered paypal as an option? ahhaha time to audit those numbers
posted on October 2, 2002 11:38:10 AM new
With a growth rate of 28,000+ per day, I doubt they will miss you and yours. In fact, I know they wont, since you have been booted for how many different reasons?
posted on October 2, 2002 12:14:24 PM new
gee snoop you just said that you were gone from these boards for good and low and behold here you are again. PLEASE find somewhere else to peddle your "crapware". of course we all now how you keep to your word so seeing another post from you is really no surprise !
posted on October 2, 2002 12:43:06 PM new
Euros and Pounds Sterling debut Oct 9th, I don't think many realize how a big step that's going to be. Once PayPal can be used for multiple currencies the overseas growth could skyrocket.
Given snoopnetdog's past history, I've no doubts that he'll be slithering around finding a new partner to set him up with a PayPal proxy account.
posted on October 2, 2002 12:49:23 PM new
"Customer complaints have been growing along with PayPal's customer base. Plaintiffs in the proposed class-action suit say that the online money mover has accumulated a backlog of more than 100,000 customer complaints. The company allegedly stalls customer grievances for months while freezing their account and pocketing any interest that accrues. "
posted on October 2, 2002 01:52:43 PM newkkaazThere could be millions who can not use their accounts or have complaints against Paypal not yet "filed".
There could be a couple like yourself that didn't follow the rules and lost in a dispute simply because you couldn't prove you shipped to the confirmed billing address, or like snoopnetdog who was simply ripping people off and blamed PayPal when the gig was up.
kkaaz, If you don't want to ship to a billing address for protection in a dispute get youself a merchant account. See how well that works for you.
snoopnetdog (aka bag of scams), If you want to sell people your pie in the sky merchandise get yourself a merchant account. See how well that works for you.
posted on October 2, 2002 02:53:33 PM newThe company allegedly stalls customer grievances for months while freezing their account and pocketing any interest that accrues.
I certainly hope those shisters did their homework better than the indiciations. It is a known and documented fact, that no interest accures to PayPal's benefit on customer funds. Typical garbage you would expect from a lawyer, but if any indication, I doubt they have anymore complaints than their 2 plaintiffs, the validity of which is still to be tested.
posted on October 2, 2002 04:13:16 PM new
[kkaaz, If you don't want to ship to a billing address for protection in a dispute get youself a merchant account. See how well that works for you. ]
I could not have used a merchant account for that transaction as I was not paid with a credit card or a bank debt card or a e-check. I received Paypal Funds. You can not use a Merchant account to accept Paypal funds and my buyer could not have pulled a scam like they did with any other payment service.
Why don't you get your facts straight before posting. A merchant account has rules set up for "credit card payments". On a credit card payment you need to ship to a "confirmed credit card address." That way they know it's not a stolen credit card. Billpoint does the same as well as Paypal.
Paypal however requires shipping to credit card billing addresses / confirmed address on ALL PAYMENT types for protection as of Jan 2002 (maybe partially thanks to me). Not just on credit cards. Something a merchant account or other payment service like Billpoint do not do. You do not have to follow the credit card rules on non-credit card payments.
I have never had a credit card payment reversed under me.
Why ? Because when I receive a credit card payment, I follow the steps required for protection from a chargeback.
However I will not and do not have to follow the steps for "chargeback" protection on any non-credit card payments. Had I received a credit card payment thru Paypal without a confirmed address, I would deny it based on this warning in my terms of use with Paypal..
______________
If a buyer does not provide a Confirmed Address, the seller must either refuse the payment and ask that the buyer provide a Confirmed Address, or accept the chargeback risk in shipping the item outside of this Seller Protection Policy.
______________
Try reading that uaru. Does it say "reversal" at all ? Does it risk of any risk other then a "chargeback" ?
It says if you get a credit card payment, you need to ship to the confirmed address of the buyer or risk a possible chargeback.
So according to that phrase in a legal binding contract, there is no warning of a "reversal" for not shipping to the buyers confirmed address.
As I COULD NOT get a chargeback, I was told by that statement Paypal wrote that I could safely not ship to the confirmed address as there is no warning of any other types if risk.
But that's what Paypal told me is said. They said it meant “reversal” It does not say reversal. It says chargeback. Damon thepaypal posted and e-mailed me that it did warn of a "reversal"
So I told Damon and Paypal they were wrong. I said it only says "chargeback". And by factual logical proof, the word "reversal" is not anywhere in that sentence. It can not say "reversal" because there are no letters formed in a word that even looks like "reversal"
I don't follow credit card rules when not paid with a credit card !!!!! If you can not get a chargeback, you do not have to follow chargeback rules.
Now after Paypal saw their "MISTAKE", they made a quick change to the user agreement.
So Paypal then went thru the whole process of changing that entire phrase (as well as at least two other phrases) in the current user agreement (as of 2002) to this
----------
If a buyer does not provide a Confirmed Address, the seller must either refuse the payment and ask that the buyer provide a Confirmed Address, or accept the reversal risk in shipping the item outside of this Seller Protection Policy.
-----------
Now it says if you get a "payment", you need to ship to the confirmed address of the buyer or risk a possible "reversal" of that payment.
ok....... NOW IT SAYS REVERSAL. NOW IT SAYS WHAT IT NEEDED TO SAY IN 2001. NOW PAYPAL WARNS OF A REVERSAL RISK IF YOU DO NOT SHIP TO THE CONFIRMED ADDRESS. NOW IT SAYS WHAT I TOLD PAYPAL IT SHOULD OF SAID TO HOLD ME LIABLE.
Now it says what it did not say before. Now it warns of a “reversal”.
Paypal fixed their mistake (well there were at least two other places that where “chargeback” was removed and replaced with “reversal”. The same mistakes I told them they made.
The same mistake that lead to Paypal assisting an account used in the commission of mail fraud.
Paypal made a mistake. I told Paypal of their mistake many times . Paypal then fixed their mistake. Paypal denied the mistake and even beached their user agreement with me by trying to sneak their changed "terms of use" against me (I guess hoping I would not find out their little switch) and claimed they were the "terms of use" from 2001. (Damon the Paypal who claims to work for Paypal on more then one occasions sent or posted the terms of use from 2002 and claimed they were the ones I had to follow for an event that happened in 2001 and he claimed they always said the same thing.
They may deny the mistake but can not deny the fix. The fix can be seen by anyone who can read words and sentences.
[It is a known and documented fact, that no interest accures to PayPal's benefit on customer funds].
Coonr, Don’t try and act like yesterday did not exist. It’s only documented as of this year, Paypal is claiming to not receiving interest off customer funds. There are years before 2002 like 2001 and 2000 etc. A lawsuit is in most case filed after the event that way they know what to sue for. I understand this is hard for you to grasp but hang in there.
So if they froze funds in 2001, they would get sued in 2001 or beyond and not in the year 2000. Just because paypal made a change in 2002 does not mean they are not guilty of pocketing interest off accounts they froze in past years.
And with 100,000 or more complaints according to that article, that is a heck of a lot of money they could have stuck in the Paypal “pocket”
posted on October 2, 2002 05:41:22 PM new
pssst... kkaaz, You can type out "War and Peace" if you like, but it won't change the fact you shipped somewhere else than the confirmed billing address and were held liable.
posted on October 2, 2002 05:57:21 PM new
UARU, I am reminded of another poster on another forum, who was explaining it to a rock in his back yard. At last report he thought the rock was showing more signs of understanding.
posted on October 2, 2002 07:40:30 PM new
Regardless of whether Kkazz violated the tos, if any buyer can tell any seller to ship to a specific address that isn't confirmed (e.g. with PayPal's form), accept delivery, and then win a buyer complaint, in my opinion PayPal should rethink their policy. It would be different if the buyer was claiming unauthorized access to his/her account, but they don't seem to be doing that here.
[ edited by andrew123s on Oct 2, 2002 07:41 PM ]
The purpose of the confirmed billing address is to prevent fraud. Without it, some could take a stolen creedit card, open an account, take delivery and be gone, by the time the rightful owner of the card learns of the transaction.
kkaaz, will rant that his transaction was not funded by a credit card, but to bypass that would only require the fraudster to open 2 accounts and pay the money from the 1st account (credit card) to the second account and than send to the unsuspecting such as kev.
You may think this is far fetched? PayPal rep informed him he did not ship to the same state as the confirmed (credit card) address on the account.
The bottom line is, unless you ship to a confirmed address, your liable for any reversal.
posted on October 2, 2002 08:12:48 PM newIt would be different if the buyer was claiming unauthorized access to his/ her account, but they don't seem to be doing that here.
I believe that unauthorized use may very well be the case here. Kkaaz shipped an expensive item to a user with zero feedback to a different state than the account holder's confirmed billing address according to Damon. Kkaaz took the risk and lost. He just won't accept it. He's unable to understand the fraud prevention measure that made him liable.
How can PayPal allow the seller to ship to any address and not hold the seller liable? If PayPal was to allow that they'd be in the same boat as exchangepath, emoneymail, payplace, payme, and several others, out of business. Allowing sellers to ship anywhere without liabilities would be a license to steal.
posted on October 3, 2002 03:52:54 AM new
If it was fraudulent use of an account (openening an account with cc info that isn't yours, etc.) then yes, he should be liable. But PayPal should have a way in their system to seperate claims of unauthorized use with claims from buyers who are just gaming the system. If PayPal can tell it was not unauthorized use (based on ips, other successful purchaces on that account, etc.) then they shouldn't just automatically let the buyer win.
posted on October 3, 2002 05:17:17 AM newandrew123sIf it was fraudulent use of an account (openening an account with cc info that isn't yours, etc.) then yes, he should be liable. But PayPal should have a way in their system to seperate claims of unauthorized use with claims from buyers who are just gaming the system.
How would PayPal go about determining if the buyer was gaming the system? Sending out a team of investigators would get real expensive real quick, PayPal can't do that any more than VISA or MasterCard could. If someone steals a credit card info to setup an account, or if someone steals a PayPal password the requirment of shipping to a confirmed billing address is assurance PayPal has of the seller acting in good faith.
It's a simple economic decision that makes a lot of business sense. If the seller ships to somewhere other than the confirmed shipping address the seller is liable for disputes of non-delivery or unauthorized use. Credit card companies have had to operate this way for years on non-point of sales, PayPal is in the same situation.
No company could afford a team of investigators to travel and examine every buyer's actions on a dispute of non-delivery or unauthorized use. It's ridiculous to even imagine that, right? PayPal simply asks for delivery confirmation with online tracking to determine the merchandise was shipped to the account holder's confirmed shipping address. Kkaaz couldn't supply that, he lost the dispute.
What would it take for Kkaaz to be able to prove to you that he shipped the item to the account holder?
posted on October 3, 2002 07:16:01 AM new
As I have said in several posts and I will say it again, the easiest way for PayPal to stop some of the bad accounts is to provide the confirmed billing address automatically.
Just an opinion and I really do not need to see the steps take to by the seller. PayPal should make it available without the seller doing anything
posted on October 3, 2002 07:41:25 AM new...the easiest way for PayPal to stop some of the bad accounts is to provide the confirmed billing address automatically.
What would you do about the various accounts, which for numerous different reasons, do not have a confirmed address?
posted on October 3, 2002 07:45:37 AM newthechase200PayPal should make it available without the seller doing anything
If the confirmed billing address isn't included the payment remains in an unclaimed state and automatically returns to the buyer in 30 days unless the seller makes a decision. That is the default setting. The seller can change the settings to require all payments include a billing address or accept all payments automatically. This is how it has worked since January 2001. And yes I know I've said that before.
kkaaz had to take an action to accept the payment.
Fair question and there are a couple ways of handling that.
1.) Make the confirmed address present only for credit card transactions. Since this is where most of the fraud comes from and it is easy to provide that address since it the billing address. Customers that use either their balance or bank accounts are not able to do a chargeback and can only file a complaint.
2.) For people that do not have a credit card assigned to the account, since both the SSN and bank account must be verified to increase a limit, then send a snail mail letter the mailing address on the account. This will confirm that address. This set can also be done for credit card accounts as well.
Chargebacks are a major concern to both the Seller of the product and PayPal as well. If you have a merchant account and you receive a high number of charge backs on an account, MasterCard and Visa can place a merchant on the Terminated Merchant File. This is a concern for the a Merchant using his own account and is why a lot of merchants will only ship to the billing address of the credit card or a shipping address that has been approved on the credit card as well.
As for the specifics of what happened with kkaaz, I really am not talking about that. The fear of anyone selling on the internet is the fear of credit card fraud and the chargeback. Following either one of the ideas will decrease the amount of chargebacks seen by both PayPal and the seller.
Now, I know that you both you and Uaru are going to say there is nothing wrong with the current system, but if PayPal gave the confirmed address regardless of what the customer wanted, then the seller has no one to blame but himself. How could a seller blame PayPal for not protecting him from a chargeback when the the seller chose to ignor the confirmed address and ship to another address.
If PayPal loses in other litigation and complaints start to go to a jury trial, anything can happen. We all remember how McDonald's got sued because some lady did not know that when you buy coffee, it was supposed to be hot. Who knows, a Jury might see it as a fault of PayPal regardless of the TOS
posted on October 3, 2002 08:14:43 AM newthechase2001.) Make the confirmed address present only for credit card transactions. Since this is where most of the fraud comes from and it is easy to provide that address since it the billing address. Customers that use either their balance or bank accounts are not able to do a chargeback and can only file a complaint.
A popular scam and one that will increase in popularity is the setting up of spoof sites to get PayPal passwords. Thieves aren't just stealing credit card info anymore. The only defense for unauthorized use of PayPal accounts is the requirement of the 'confirmed billing address' no matter what the source of the funds.
thechase2002.) For people that do not have a credit card assigned to the account, since both the SSN and bank account must be verified to increase a limit, then send a snail mail letter the mailing address on the account. This will confirm that address. This set can also be done for credit card accounts as well.
The SSN is not required to increase your limit, a bank account verification is. There is a difference. There is also an alternate address confirmation process. You can look at the requirements here, it's not a simple process.
Wow, you can type, however, the problem is the even with an e-check most sellers know you have to ship to a confirmed address.
All parties in a dispute can take portions of the TOS and copy them over for their purposes. As much as I disagree with Coonr and Uaru, the fact is that you did not ship to a confirmed address and therefore not afforded the protection under the SPP.
The buyer committed a crime under the law and should be punished for it. You shipped and you have your delivery confirmation, use that and get the guy in Jail.
posted on October 3, 2002 09:29:09 AM new1.) Make the confirmed address present only for credit card transactions.
Credit Card addresses cannot be confirmed for International Users. How do you propose to handle those?
2.) For people that do not have a credit card assigned to the account....
As UARU point out, there are alternate ways to obtain a 'confirmed' address, however I think even than, there are restrictions.
Now, I know that you both you and Uaru are going to say there is nothing wrong with the current system, but if PayPal gave the confirmed address regardless of what the customer wanted, then the seller has no one to blame but himself. How could a seller blame PayPal for not protecting him from a chargeback when the the seller chose to ignor the confirmed address and ship to another address.
Truth is, I do not like the current system, however that would be another entire thread. I do however understand it, and use it. Whether or not the confrimed address is present, the seller knows if he is not shipping to a confrimed address.
posted on October 3, 2002 10:08:49 AM new
When shipping internationally, most merchant accounts do not cover that either. I think on international orders, the seller needs to take full responsiability for it.
If there is a chargeback, PayPal needs to have the ability to recover the funds. If a seller has followed the shipped to the confirmed address, then PayPal has the ability to dispute the charge since most card companies require that the item be shipped to the billing address to the card and have an adult signature. In some cases, the credit card company requires that the card hold even sign for it.
If you ship internationally, PayPal has hardly any possibility to recover the funds from the buyer and could be left holding the bag
posted on October 3, 2002 01:27:43 PM new
Obviously I'm not advocating a team of investigators to be sent out on each transaction. I'm just saying they should look at some other factors in making their buyer complaint decisions. If an account holder has had an account open for a long time, and has completed many sucessful transactions (no complaints/chargebacks), and then all of a sudden reqests merchendise to be sent to a different address on the payment form (and files a complaint saying they didn't get it), PayPal should be able to put two and two together.
They could also look at ips; if many successful transactions and the transaction that the buyer is claiming they didn't get (yet the merchendise was delivered as proved by delivery confirmation to the address the buyer requested) are from the same ip, it is another indicator that the buyer may be trying to game the system.
There is another procedure to claim unauthorized use, and PayPal again can look at the ips and other data to see whether the claim is valid (if unauthorized use is claimed). Obviously, the seller should be found liable if there are no other factors that point directly to the buyer trying to get something for free. Yes, sellers should ship to the confirmed address (or should decide whether or not to based on feedback) but in the situations where this doesn't happen, there are other things PayPal can investigate that don't require much effort on their part.
[ edited by andrew123s on Oct 3, 2002 01:29 PM ]
posted on October 3, 2002 02:07:36 PM new
[the problem is the even with an e-check most sellers know you have to ship to a confirmed address. ]
Only with Paypal any only because of the change that took place to the terms of use in Jan 2002. You can not get a “chargeback” on an e-check.
Billpoint does not require shipping to a confirmed address on e-checks. They have listed steps that have to be followed only for protection from a chargeback. Just as I understood Paypal to be in 2001 by the way they worded their user agreement. Just Paypal messed up and did not word their user agreement correctly.
Just as Paypal was in 2001 before they made the change.
[All parties in a dispute can take portions of the TOS and copy them over for their purposes. As much as I disagree with Coonr and Uaru, the fact is that you did not ship to a confirmed address and therefore not afforded the protection under the SPP. ]
The problem is Paypal changes the terms and them tries to deny the change or pass the changed off to the user for past transactions. If they accepted they made a mistake, they should accept responisiblity for any damages their mistake made.
Paypal accepted their mistake. They even fixed it and everyone can see the fix.
I don't know that I did not ship to the confirmed address. Paypal would not release any information or take any information without a court order forcing them. I think my shipping address matched the confirmed address at the time 100% but I had no proof of that. I never received anything from Paypal that had the words "confirmed" or Non-confirmed"
Did I ship to the confirmed address. YES, I belive so. And I shipped to the address that was on the e-mail and on the payment screen. I recieved no warnings.
Can I prove it without a court order. NO. I have nothing that says confirmed or non-confirmed. Paypal refused to help.
And Damon told me several months later it was a different address. That gave the account user several months to change the address. In October 2001, Paypal rudely refused to take proof or offer assistance without a court order forcing them.
Nice customer service.... NOT !!!!
Point is Paypal terms of use in 2001 where vague. Paypal saw this and fixed it after this event. After I showed Paypal they forgot to put the word "reversal" in the SPP and confirmed address section. They did that very same thing. They made every change I suggested.
Was I correct ? Enough to make paypal change the user agreement used by millions......
Point here is Paypal totally knows what's up and they refused to help.
They know the buyer removed the confirmed address. This removed ALL WARNINGS from the payment screen.
They know the buyer put an address in the notes field that matched 100% to the e-mail I forwarded Paypal.
Paypal knows a buyers complaint does not cover unauthorized account usage and only a "buyer" can file a "buyers complaint"
There is no "account holder complaint" in 2001 except with Travelers Insurance and they would cover in the event of an unauthorized use account.
UNLESS PAYPAL FILED A CLAIM AND ATTEMPTED TO GET FUNDS FROM ME AND TRAVELERS. (maybe that is why Damon freaked out when I asked him if a claim was filed !!!)
MAYBE PAYPAL DOUBLE DIPPED ?
Paypal knows the item was shipped to the address with online tracking. Paypal knows the item was signed for at that address by a signed delivery confirmation. Paypal knows the buyer got the item as the buyer left feedback saying they got the item.
Would I be liable for a reversal like this under today’s user agreement ?
Yes. Because that is what is says word for word NOW. Now it says what It should of said in 2001. But not under the terms of 2001 as they did not properly warn of a possible "reversal" for not shipping to the "confirmed address"
This is what Paypal fixed in 2002.
However Paypal knowingly reversed a payment after the item was shipped and received at the promised address. Unlike with a "chargeback", Paypal has all the proof of the fraudulent act sitting in front of them and they chose to do nothing.
Paypal knows their terms were incorrect or they would not have changed them. They made at least three word changes to all the places I showed them.
And paypal knows it's not legal to take the terms of use from 2002 and pass them off as 2001 if one single word was changed. And on several occasions, Damon sent or posted terms from 2002 and claimed they were the 2001 terms. That is breach of contract.
So I am not liable for any reversal and I do not owe Paypal any seller fees.
And Paypal has shown me they change the rules after the event and then try to hold the seller responsible for their proven mistakes.
Had Paypal not made a mistake, they would not have changed the work "chargeback" to the word "reversal" in at least three places.
I pointed out every single mistake in the wording I found in Paypal’s terms of use in 2001. I showed Paypal and Damon these mistakes in late 2001. Then in 2002, Paypal changed their entire user agreement and this change refaced EVERY single phase I said they made a mistake in.
posted on October 3, 2002 06:34:49 PM newThey could also look at ips; if many successful transactions and the transaction that the buyer is claiming they didn't get .... are from the same ip, it is another indicator that the buyer may be trying to game the system.
That has its problems, many IP's use a pool of address, someone else could have had my current IP address this morning..... I am sure, that among other things PayPal does look at IP addresses.
