5 ms·

Step one of the process was repeated demands for verification, re-verification and re-re-verification, which in my book is harassment; there's a level of verifi

Step one of the process was repeated demands for verification, re-verification and re-re-verification, which in my book is harassment; there's a level of verification that's reasonable to protect against fraud, and there's a level of verification which adds nothing to the protection and serves only to frustrate. Step two was "you don't want to play our game? Fine, we'll lock up your money". That's extortion, plain and simple. Given the reported background behind it, there is nothing reasonable about it. And no matter how much good work they may do in other cases, it provides no excuse for the conduct described in this case. Or, more succinctly: there's a very good reason why Paypal has such an abysmal reputation, and it's not because they're portrayed unfairly in cases like this one.

wdewind 16y ago
>And no matter how much good work they may do in other cases, it provides no excuse for the conduct described in this case. That's just not true. It completely disregards reality. In a fantasy world where life is totally fair you are correct. Back in the real world, failure rate is a VERY relevant stat, and is never expected to be 0. The system and processes in the company have been optimized to handle certain types of cases extremely well. They will fail on other cases (like this one). My argument is that they should change their policy to simply not support the cases for which their system isn't perfected, but you are using a volvo and expecting a porsche. But just because this one case was a failure does not mean the system is failing in general. It's not, there is a reason PayPal is so successful.