6 ms·

I can't think of a legal reason for this policy. Normally, one must be 18 years old to enter into a contract, so the policy of preventing users under 18 from us

I can't think of a legal reason for this policy. Normally, one must be 18 years old to enter into a contract, so the policy of preventing users under 18 from using the service is rational. However, if a user under 18 turns 18 years old during the contract, the contract is "ratified" and becomes valid and enforceable. It's as if they were 18 years old all along. So, there is no legal reason for Paypal to terminate accounts for people who enter into the contract under 18 yet turn 18 during the contract period.

iDemonix 10y ago
Interesting! If I wanted the account back I'd be tempted to fight back, but there's nothing to gain.
- phr4ts 10y ago
  Except your money. You could probably get it now instead of 6 months time.
  - iDemonix 10y ago
    Apologies, I've commented a few times on this thread, I've managed to get most of the money, minus fees, back. Whilst there's no option in the modern UI, if you set your account back to use the classic UI, the refund button appears in the transaction details page, I refunded my friend and we're moving away from PP.
    - welly 10y ago
      Why did you use Paypal rather than a bank transfer in the first place? Is your friend Mat from overseas? If so, can I recommend Transferwise for overseas payments.
      - sundvor 10y ago
        PayPal is fantastic for transfers - when it works / as long as you're not hit by their "arbitrary bus".
        xorcist 9y ago
        I don't know about "fantastic", those fees are astronomical by any measure (3% where my bank would be free and an extra 3% on top of that for currency exchange spead where the bank is less than half) but it's often the only available alternative.
        ReidZB 9y ago
        For transfers between "friends and family," there aren't any fees, which probably drives a non-negligible number of account creations. That said, if PayPal thinks your transaction is not between "friends and family" (despite being marked so), they won't hesitate to freeze those funds while they investigate. A couple years ago, I used to send my portion of rent to my roommate via PayPal, and they froze the funds once on him. Surprisingly, he was able to get them unfrozen pretty quickly. That free transfer system in combination with being a "safer" payment option offered by some merchants makes PayPal pretty attractive to the average customer. And -- most of the horror stories come from merchants, not customers. Even though I try to avoid PayPal on principle, it's hard for me to convince my friends to care.
        sundvor 9y ago
        Yep. I was primarily thinking about friends / family here, thanks for clarifying that they are free. Just used one for an international transfer of cash into family member's bank; the turnaround was significantly quicker than using my bank, essentially delivering same day availability of funds in the bank. It ended up being cheaper than using my bank also.
VotreReb 10y ago
"I can't think of a legal reason for this policy." Wouldn't it be that you committed financial fraud? Paypal initially allowed you to send/receive payments purely based on the fact that you stated you were an age you were not. The Paypal signup form does not let you signup unless the DOB given, shows you're over the age of 18. This guy lied about his age and then had the audacity to write a blog post about how bad Paypal is. He shows he's willing to lie and also willing to commit financial fraud (as that is what it's considered.) - I for one, am very glad someone like him HAS been banned from Paypal.
- maxander 10y ago
  I'm not sure you're being serious. Do you carefully read the EULA or TOS of everything you pay for, line by line? Do you consult a lawyer about how to parse the legalese? If not, you've almost certainly also committed fraud of the same degree.
  - VotreReb 10y ago
    There's a difference between reading the EULA/TOS and lying to gain access to something you shouldn't. If you're knowingly lying to gain access something, you don't need a EULA/TOS to know you shouldn't be doing it.
    - blowski 10y ago
      You are very defensive of PayPal in this thread. Do you have a connection with them in any way?
    - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
      17 or 18 years old. It's an arbitrary distinction. I don't think many people would have an issue with anyone saying they were 18 to get an online account. This isn't the same as lying with the intent to cause harm. It would have been simpler for everyone if PayPal had given him an option to agree to new TOS now they've picked the discrepancy. Anyway, children can have bank accounts and own real estate and shares. Having a PayPal account at the age of 17 is less offensive than farting in an elevator.
x1798DE 10y ago
> I can't think of a legal reason for this policy. Normally, one must be 18 years old to enter into a contract, so the policy of preventing users under 18 from using the service is rational. Depending on where you are, I think this is not entirely true. IANAL, but I think that in many/most US states, contracts with minors are not presumptively void, they are voidable at the option of the minor (or their guardian, I imagine). Of course, this is a pretty big downside for their counterparties, so it makes contracts with minors pretty unappealing, obviously.
regularfry 10y ago
This isn't true in the UK. Contracts with children are valid (although there are gotchas). Besides which, is signing up for PayPal a contract in the first place?
- awinter-py 10y ago
  yes -- I'm not a lawyer but in the united states there's case law ruling that clickwrap / TOS are enforceable contracts in some cases. (subject to standard limitations from UCC, contracts of adhesion, and rules of forming a contract).
- DanBC 10y ago
  > Contracts with children are valid (although there are gotchas). Contracts can't be enforced against children in England. A child is someone under the age of 18. > Besides which, is signing up for PayPal a contract in the first place? Yes. Paypal make an offer, the customer accepts that offer. There's mutual obligation: paypal provides a service and the customer pays fees.

iDemonix 10y ago

Interesting! If I wanted the account back I'd be tempted to fight back, but there's nothing to gain.

phr4ts 10y ago
Except your money. You could probably get it now instead of 6 months time.
- iDemonix 10y ago
  Apologies, I've commented a few times on this thread, I've managed to get most of the money, minus fees, back. Whilst there's no option in the modern UI, if you set your account back to use the classic UI, the refund button appears in the transaction details page, I refunded my friend and we're moving away from PP.
  - welly 10y ago
    Why did you use Paypal rather than a bank transfer in the first place? Is your friend Mat from overseas? If so, can I recommend Transferwise for overseas payments.
    - sundvor 10y ago
      PayPal is fantastic for transfers - when it works / as long as you're not hit by their "arbitrary bus".
      - xorcist 9y ago
        I don't know about "fantastic", those fees are astronomical by any measure (3% where my bank would be free and an extra 3% on top of that for currency exchange spead where the bank is less than half) but it's often the only available alternative.
        ReidZB 9y ago
        For transfers between "friends and family," there aren't any fees, which probably drives a non-negligible number of account creations. That said, if PayPal thinks your transaction is not between "friends and family" (despite being marked so), they won't hesitate to freeze those funds while they investigate. A couple years ago, I used to send my portion of rent to my roommate via PayPal, and they froze the funds once on him. Surprisingly, he was able to get them unfrozen pretty quickly. That free transfer system in combination with being a "safer" payment option offered by some merchants makes PayPal pretty attractive to the average customer. And -- most of the horror stories come from merchants, not customers. Even though I try to avoid PayPal on principle, it's hard for me to convince my friends to care.
        sundvor 9y ago
        Yep. I was primarily thinking about friends / family here, thanks for clarifying that they are free. Just used one for an international transfer of cash into family member's bank; the turnaround was significantly quicker than using my bank, essentially delivering same day availability of funds in the bank. It ended up being cheaper than using my bank also.

VotreReb 10y ago

"I can't think of a legal reason for this policy." Wouldn't it be that you committed financial fraud? Paypal initially allowed you to send/receive payments purely based on the fact that you stated you were an age you were not. The Paypal signup form does not let you signup unless the DOB given, shows you're over the age of 18. This guy lied about his age and then had the audacity to write a blog post about how bad Paypal is. He shows he's willing to lie and also willing to commit financial fraud (as that is what it's considered.) - I for one, am very glad someone like him HAS been banned from Paypal.

maxander 10y ago
I'm not sure you're being serious. Do you carefully read the EULA or TOS of everything you pay for, line by line? Do you consult a lawyer about how to parse the legalese? If not, you've almost certainly also committed fraud of the same degree.
- VotreReb 10y ago
  There's a difference between reading the EULA/TOS and lying to gain access to something you shouldn't. If you're knowingly lying to gain access something, you don't need a EULA/TOS to know you shouldn't be doing it.
  - blowski 10y ago
    You are very defensive of PayPal in this thread. Do you have a connection with them in any way?
  - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
    17 or 18 years old. It's an arbitrary distinction. I don't think many people would have an issue with anyone saying they were 18 to get an online account. This isn't the same as lying with the intent to cause harm. It would have been simpler for everyone if PayPal had given him an option to agree to new TOS now they've picked the discrepancy. Anyway, children can have bank accounts and own real estate and shares. Having a PayPal account at the age of 17 is less offensive than farting in an elevator.

x1798DE 10y ago

> I can't think of a legal reason for this policy. Normally, one must be 18 years old to enter into a contract, so the policy of preventing users under 18 from using the service is rational. Depending on where you are, I think this is not entirely true. IANAL, but I think that in many/most US states, contracts with minors are not presumptively void, they are voidable at the option of the minor (or their guardian, I imagine). Of course, this is a pretty big downside for their counterparties, so it makes contracts with minors pretty unappealing, obviously.

regularfry 10y ago

This isn't true in the UK. Contracts with children are valid (although there are gotchas). Besides which, is signing up for PayPal a contract in the first place?

awinter-py 10y ago
yes -- I'm not a lawyer but in the united states there's case law ruling that clickwrap / TOS are enforceable contracts in some cases. (subject to standard limitations from UCC, contracts of adhesion, and rules of forming a contract).
DanBC 10y ago
> Contracts with children are valid (although there are gotchas). Contracts can't be enforced against children in England. A child is someone under the age of 18. > Besides which, is signing up for PayPal a contract in the first place? Yes. Paypal make an offer, the customer accepts that offer. There's mutual obligation: paypal provides a service and the customer pays fees.