17 ms·

> Initiated a PayPal chargeback process - PayPal responded: "we’ve determined there was no unauthorized use" Just wanted to highlight this. Things like this is

> Initiated a PayPal chargeback process - PayPal responded: "we’ve determined there was no unauthorized use" Just wanted to highlight this. Things like this is why I avoid PayPal as much as possible. For many years now.

DanBC 6y ago
Just checking you know that many banks would take the same stance.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  American Express has never denied a chargeback I've initiated. When you say "many banks", of course don't bank with someone who is going to screw you, like Paypal or Wells Fargo (and Bank of America or JP Morgan Chase, to a lesser extent). This should be common (US centric) knowledge by now.
  - tluyben2 6y ago
    Amex doesn't but visa/master/etc depend on the issuing bank and they can (and do) refuse. More in other countries vs USA as far as I understand.
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
      Agreed, but if your time has value, (if you can) structure your financial transactions in a way and with service providers that derisks you having to spend hours chasing down your own money when you shouldn't have to (or going through the motions and being told you're SOL). And never use Paypal!
- klmadfejno 6y ago
  On some services. You would almost certainly be able to recoup the money if it was paid for via credit card.
- starfox64_ 6y ago
  I doubt many banks would refuse a charge-back considering this transaction obviously didn't use 3DSecure since it went through PayPal. You'd probably get your PayPal account shutdown if it went through though.
  - DanBC 6y ago
    If the money left your account because you did a thing, even if you did the thing because you were defrauded, a bunch of banks are going to decline to repay you. Here's news about a new protection scheme in the UK. But this is new (only came in last year), and it doesn't cover all banks. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48385426 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48385426 > New protection for individuals tricked into transferring money to fraudsters has now taken effect - but not all banks are signed up to the scheme. > Some 84,000 bank customers lost money - sometimes tens of thousands of pounds - last year after being caught out. > Only a fraction of the amount lost was refunded by banks. Now a new code should mean more will be reimbursed. > The refund will come from a central pot in cases when neither the bank nor the customer are to blame. See especially this bit: > Some of the more elaborate frauds see the con-artists using social media and other avenues such as data breaches to gather information about their victim, making it more likely that potential victims believe they are genuine. > In all these cases, the individual authorises the payment. Banks have often refused to refund these frauds as a result.
scott31 6y ago
Paypal is 100% right in this case though
- 0xFluegel 6y ago
  Is it though? It surely is authenticated but is it authorized? By whom? Certainly not by the user.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    The user has authorized PayPal to give money to Facebook. Facebook wasn't authorized by the user themselves to run the ad campaign, but PayPal is doing exactly what it should.
    - hinkley 6y ago
      And if the same charges had been made on a Visa card, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
    - basch 6y ago
      If I have a Visa card saved in the Starbucks app, and somebody uses my Starbucks app, I did not authorize Visa for that transaction. It would be no different than losing the card. If somebody picks up my card and swipes it, "Visa is doing exactly what it should" but also it wasn't an authorized transaction and should be reversed.
      - luckylion 6y ago
        I'm not sure. When you give authorization for "all future payments to Starbucks until I tell you otherwise" (which is what you're doing with recurring payments being set up between FB and PP), you're authorizing that payment to Starbucks. You're not authorizing Starbucks to take whatever they want, but that's between you and them, not you and Visa. Visa just happens to be very accommodating and will often pressure the vendor. Losing your card would have been similar to the OP's PayPal account being hacked.
- 6y ago
commoner 6y ago
A consumer can still file a chargeback through the financial institution (of the payment method used in the transaction) after PayPal declines the dispute. Hopefully, the author was charged on his credit card and not his PayPal balance. Debit cards and bank accounts are in a gray area for this case.
- LandR 6y ago
  I have a VISA credit card and a VISA debit card. I was under the assumption that the VISA debit card offers me the same protections as the crecit card but I think I was wrong... > Are PayPal purchases covered? You are unlikely to be protected under debit card Chargeback schemes for items purchased using PayPal. In these cases the act of loading money onto your PayPal account counts as the debit card transaction so, unless the money fails to be credited, it won't be covered. PayPal runs its own purchase protection scheme which extends some cover to your purchases, but it is in house rather than regulated by law.
  - commoner 6y ago
    Consumer protections are based on your country's laws, but credit cards will generally have stronger protections than debit cards and bank accounts. In the US, the consumer's liability for unauthorized credit card use is capped at $50, while the liability for unauthorized debit card and bank account use is capped at $50 (2 days), capped at $500 (3-60 days), or is unlimited (61+ days) depending on when you report it. Most American financial institutions go beyond the law to promise $0 liability for unauthorized credit card use. https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/pdf-0075-lost-or-stolen-credit-atm-and-debit-cards.pdf https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/pdf-0075-lost-or-stole... In the US, you don't have to pay the disputed portion of a credit card bill while the chargeback investigation is ongoing. Most financial institutions will issue a temporary credit to make this clear. https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0219-disputing-credit-card-charges https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0219-disputing-credit-... If anyone here is familiar with Dutch law, the author might appreciate your input.
    - fencepost 6y ago
scoutt 6y ago
I wonder what would happen if the author shows this article to PayPal (if not done already), showing that also Facebook confirmed the scam and Google taking down the app.
deepstack 6y ago
Trust your bank more. Find a good trust worthy local bank or credit union.
- leviathant 6y ago
  Back in 2004 or so, I logged into online banking and saw that where I had about $3000 the day before, I now had less than $100. Mortified, I looked and saw that there were a couple of Paypal transactions being processed. I didn't see anything in my email, and I logged into Paypal and didn't see anything on the summary screen, but when I looked at the fully history, I saw two eBay purchases: One for a hacked PS2, one for a laptop. I was able to contact both sellers: The guy with the PS2 hadn't shipped his yet, and canceled. The laptop seller lamented that he had mailed it right away - to the Philippines. To this day, I don't know how this guy in the Philippines accessed my Paypal account - I did manage to reach out to him, but he expected me to pay him to give up his secrets, and I'm not playing that game. Anyhow, I called my bank and explained to them that these were fraudulent transactions, and thank goodness you have them on hold but haven't processed them, because my rent is coming up and could you please release the money. The bank refused. I'd been a member of the same institution for probably a dozen years, had a car loan out through them, was on track to get a mortgage through them in a few years, and they told me that even though I had caught it that very morning, about as soon as I could possibly have caught it, that there was nothing they could do. Paypal, on the other hand, asked me to sign an affidavit, and a couple of weeks later, fully refunded my account. I've held Paypal above banks ever since. In retrospect, eBay had acquired Paypal only two years prior, and this transaction happening on eBay probably garnered additional scrutiny at the time. However, nearly every time I read about someone's Paypal account getting locked out, it turns out they weren't paying attention to the Terms of Service - which are, without a doubt, designed to minimize fraudulent use of Paypal as a payment provider. It's why you can't do pre-sales on Paypal - it leaves them open to liability. For better or for worse, the overwhelming narrative becomes "Paypal sucks", but as you start to look at the big boy payment providers, you'll discover that Paypal is often more permissive by comparison, with rates that are comparable to or better than the big boys when you're running with such small transactional values. And if you end up going to some upstart that will let you do things Paypal won't, that party's only going to last as long as those providers don't get stung by regulatory fees or plain old fraud.
dilly_li 6y ago
In my limited times with Paypal with scam-like charges, Paypal never approves my request. On the other hand, all my credits card companies, Citi/Chase/etc. approved my similar requests after a review process.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  Anecdata here as well. I've had two times where I had to contest a Paypal purchase. In both cases, Paypal took a reasonably short amount of time to rule in my favor. (Both however were for clear-cut cases of "online vendor took an order and didn't bother to ship anything at all nor reply to Paypal inquiries".)
- badRNG 6y ago
  I've been in two different situations where I have had obviously fraudulent charges on my PayPal. In both cases, PayPal denied my claim. In both cases, Discover approved charge-backs for the PayPal charges to my card.
  - droopyEyelids 6y ago
    Did PayPal ban you after the Discover charge-back?
    - badRNG 6y ago
      Nope, still use them for a handful of things (for convenience.) The charge-backs were of significant size too ($300-$500.) This was around 2012-2013 for one and around 2015 for the other.
    - ryan-c 6y ago
      Oddly, I have actually been told in the past by PayPal to file a $1500 dispute with my credit card company (AmEx in my case) because for whatever reason they couldn't handle it internally. Didn't get banned.
- mcv 6y ago
  I thought PayPal had a reputation for pro-actively blocking payments for really bad reasons, and now they won't block payment when it's a clear case of fraud? Why does anyone still use PayPal?
_-___________-_ 6y ago
The amazing thing is that they are equally unpleasant to deal with as a merchant. You'd think they just favoured one side, but no, they screw both sides.
- readams 6y ago
  PayPal fraud protection is mostly about making sure PayPal isn't the one holding the bag in the end. Any actual prevention of fraud is secondary at best.
  - ezconnect 6y ago
    They have a recent change that is anti merchant, when someone request for a refund they wont give back the transaction fee. Seller lose out on the sale and pay paypal a transaction fee, buyer get their full money and paypal keeps the transaction fee. It used to be returned to the merchant.
    - encom 6y ago
      I'm honestly surprised Paypal is still in business. Everybody hates Paypal.
      - tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
        The power of network effect. You can't afford to not accept PayPal because all the buyers have it, and all the buyers have it because you can pay with it everywhere. An alternative network would have a hard time getting users to sign up.
    - stjohnswarts 6y ago
      yeah it's more like "we've had 100 complaints about this one guy, probably ought to shut him down now"
novaRom 6y ago
Exactly this. In my recent experience PayPal is also absolutely inaccessible for a chargeback resolution. This was the reason I left booking.com, now I am considering to get rid of PayPal. In my opinion no serious transaction should ever be done on either platform.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
  What issues did you have with Booking.com and what are good alternatives? I absolutely loathe them for their high-pressure sales tactics (their site is full of dark patterns and booking there is outright stressful; it feels like you're trying to browse while a drill sergeant is constantly yelling into your ear "BOOK NOW YOU WORTHLESS SCUM, BOOK, BOOK, WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR YOU IMBECILE, CLICK IT, BOOK, NOW, NOW YOU MAGGOT") - however, unfortunately they often do have the best price (by far) or are the only place certain accommodations are available, and aside from the drill sergeant, their UX is absolutely perfect. I've been burned far too often with sites that let you go through the entire flow only to tack on ridiculous fees for payment or simply fail to process your credit card.
time0ut 6y ago
I came here to say this as well. PayPal is garbage and should never be used, at least as a consumer. There are much better options available. I have never had PayPal side with me in any dispute, no matter how one sided it was. I closed my account in 2014. Haven't missed it.
Osiris 6y ago
That's weird. As a merchant, I get requests for refunds and even if I provide all the details about the transaction (for me that would be a license key and proof the license key was used) they always side with the buyer. Really, the only way to not get PayPal to approve a refund is to work with the customer and solve the problem so the customer cancels the refund request.
- jonplackett 6y ago
  I think it's A) because it's Facebook. and B) because this type of scam is very prevalent, and no-one wants to be stuck with the numerous bills for it.
fireattack 6y ago
Why? The payment is authorized by the author (i.e. his PP account wasn't stolen), the whole thing being a scam is irrelevant and PayPal shouldn't be the judge here (if you got scammed and send some physical items to the scammer, can you ask the post office to take it back?) I sold digital goods on eBay a few times (like, less than 10 times) and I've already got 3 (!) people claiming their purchase is "unauthorized" after I sent them the goods (redeem codes, so I can't really let them "return"). I'm more than glad that PayPal took my stance instead of giving them chargeback, since they're likely trying to scam me.
- lalaithion 6y ago
  If the author had payed with a credit card, he could have gotten a refund, and it would be the responsibility of the credit card Issuer to track down the merchant and get a refund.
  - fireattack 6y ago
    And if he has paid with a debit card or wire transfer, he would be even more out of luck than PayPal. Why would we (I'm genuinely asking here) consider PayPal more similar to CC than the others? My point being, it could be (closer to) either, and both make sense to me. PP doesn't necessarily need to operate like CC. After all, CC as a service charges much more with processing fees from merchants and sometimes annual fees from the customers. It's meant to provide a "better/premium" service.
  - megablast 6y ago
    Not necessarily.
- nerdponx 6y ago
  The payment is authorized by the author (i.e. his PP account wasn't stolen), the whole thing being a scam is irrelevant and PayPal shouldn't be the judge here (if you got scammed and send some physical items to the scammer, can you ask the post office to take it back?) PayPal does have a 6 month purchase protection policy in many cases. So... maybe, if you manage to argue that this was a purchase that you're entitled to protection for. But that's a different channel and probably a different physical department at the company.

DanBC 6y ago

Just checking you know that many banks would take the same stance.

toomuchtodo 6y ago
American Express has never denied a chargeback I've initiated. When you say "many banks", of course don't bank with someone who is going to screw you, like Paypal or Wells Fargo (and Bank of America or JP Morgan Chase, to a lesser extent). This should be common (US centric) knowledge by now.
- tluyben2 6y ago
  Amex doesn't but visa/master/etc depend on the issuing bank and they can (and do) refuse. More in other countries vs USA as far as I understand.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    Agreed, but if your time has value, (if you can) structure your financial transactions in a way and with service providers that derisks you having to spend hours chasing down your own money when you shouldn't have to (or going through the motions and being told you're SOL). And never use Paypal!
klmadfejno 6y ago
On some services. You would almost certainly be able to recoup the money if it was paid for via credit card.
starfox64_ 6y ago
I doubt many banks would refuse a charge-back considering this transaction obviously didn't use 3DSecure since it went through PayPal. You'd probably get your PayPal account shutdown if it went through though.
- DanBC 6y ago
  If the money left your account because you did a thing, even if you did the thing because you were defrauded, a bunch of banks are going to decline to repay you. Here's news about a new protection scheme in the UK. But this is new (only came in last year), and it doesn't cover all banks. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48385426 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48385426 > New protection for individuals tricked into transferring money to fraudsters has now taken effect - but not all banks are signed up to the scheme. > Some 84,000 bank customers lost money - sometimes tens of thousands of pounds - last year after being caught out. > Only a fraction of the amount lost was refunded by banks. Now a new code should mean more will be reimbursed. > The refund will come from a central pot in cases when neither the bank nor the customer are to blame. See especially this bit: > Some of the more elaborate frauds see the con-artists using social media and other avenues such as data breaches to gather information about their victim, making it more likely that potential victims believe they are genuine. > In all these cases, the individual authorises the payment. Banks have often refused to refund these frauds as a result.

scott31 6y ago

Paypal is 100% right in this case though

0xFluegel 6y ago
Is it though? It surely is authenticated but is it authorized? By whom? Certainly not by the user.
- luckylion 6y ago
  The user has authorized PayPal to give money to Facebook. Facebook wasn't authorized by the user themselves to run the ad campaign, but PayPal is doing exactly what it should.
  - hinkley 6y ago
    And if the same charges had been made on a Visa card, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
  - basch 6y ago
    If I have a Visa card saved in the Starbucks app, and somebody uses my Starbucks app, I did not authorize Visa for that transaction. It would be no different than losing the card. If somebody picks up my card and swipes it, "Visa is doing exactly what it should" but also it wasn't an authorized transaction and should be reversed.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      I'm not sure. When you give authorization for "all future payments to Starbucks until I tell you otherwise" (which is what you're doing with recurring payments being set up between FB and PP), you're authorizing that payment to Starbucks. You're not authorizing Starbucks to take whatever they want, but that's between you and them, not you and Visa. Visa just happens to be very accommodating and will often pressure the vendor. Losing your card would have been similar to the OP's PayPal account being hacked.
6y ago

commoner 6y ago

A consumer can still file a chargeback through the financial institution (of the payment method used in the transaction) after PayPal declines the dispute. Hopefully, the author was charged on his credit card and not his PayPal balance. Debit cards and bank accounts are in a gray area for this case.

LandR 6y ago
I have a VISA credit card and a VISA debit card. I was under the assumption that the VISA debit card offers me the same protections as the crecit card but I think I was wrong... > Are PayPal purchases covered? You are unlikely to be protected under debit card Chargeback schemes for items purchased using PayPal. In these cases the act of loading money onto your PayPal account counts as the debit card transaction so, unless the money fails to be credited, it won't be covered. PayPal runs its own purchase protection scheme which extends some cover to your purchases, but it is in house rather than regulated by law.
- commoner 6y ago
  Consumer protections are based on your country's laws, but credit cards will generally have stronger protections than debit cards and bank accounts. In the US, the consumer's liability for unauthorized credit card use is capped at $50, while the liability for unauthorized debit card and bank account use is capped at $50 (2 days), capped at $500 (3-60 days), or is unlimited (61+ days) depending on when you report it. Most American financial institutions go beyond the law to promise $0 liability for unauthorized credit card use. https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/pdf-0075-lost-or-stolen-credit-atm-and-debit-cards.pdf https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/pdf-0075-lost-or-stole... In the US, you don't have to pay the disputed portion of a credit card bill while the chargeback investigation is ongoing. Most financial institutions will issue a temporary credit to make this clear. https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0219-disputing-credit-card-charges https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0219-disputing-credit-... If anyone here is familiar with Dutch law, the author might appreciate your input.
  - fencepost 6y ago

scoutt 6y ago

I wonder what would happen if the author shows this article to PayPal (if not done already), showing that also Facebook confirmed the scam and Google taking down the app.

deepstack 6y ago

Trust your bank more. Find a good trust worthy local bank or credit union.

leviathant 6y ago
Back in 2004 or so, I logged into online banking and saw that where I had about $3000 the day before, I now had less than $100. Mortified, I looked and saw that there were a couple of Paypal transactions being processed. I didn't see anything in my email, and I logged into Paypal and didn't see anything on the summary screen, but when I looked at the fully history, I saw two eBay purchases: One for a hacked PS2, one for a laptop. I was able to contact both sellers: The guy with the PS2 hadn't shipped his yet, and canceled. The laptop seller lamented that he had mailed it right away - to the Philippines. To this day, I don't know how this guy in the Philippines accessed my Paypal account - I did manage to reach out to him, but he expected me to pay him to give up his secrets, and I'm not playing that game. Anyhow, I called my bank and explained to them that these were fraudulent transactions, and thank goodness you have them on hold but haven't processed them, because my rent is coming up and could you please release the money. The bank refused. I'd been a member of the same institution for probably a dozen years, had a car loan out through them, was on track to get a mortgage through them in a few years, and they told me that even though I had caught it that very morning, about as soon as I could possibly have caught it, that there was nothing they could do. Paypal, on the other hand, asked me to sign an affidavit, and a couple of weeks later, fully refunded my account. I've held Paypal above banks ever since. In retrospect, eBay had acquired Paypal only two years prior, and this transaction happening on eBay probably garnered additional scrutiny at the time. However, nearly every time I read about someone's Paypal account getting locked out, it turns out they weren't paying attention to the Terms of Service - which are, without a doubt, designed to minimize fraudulent use of Paypal as a payment provider. It's why you can't do pre-sales on Paypal - it leaves them open to liability. For better or for worse, the overwhelming narrative becomes "Paypal sucks", but as you start to look at the big boy payment providers, you'll discover that Paypal is often more permissive by comparison, with rates that are comparable to or better than the big boys when you're running with such small transactional values. And if you end up going to some upstart that will let you do things Paypal won't, that party's only going to last as long as those providers don't get stung by regulatory fees or plain old fraud.

dilly_li 6y ago

In my limited times with Paypal with scam-like charges, Paypal never approves my request. On the other hand, all my credits card companies, Citi/Chase/etc. approved my similar requests after a review process.

sokoloff 6y ago
Anecdata here as well. I've had two times where I had to contest a Paypal purchase. In both cases, Paypal took a reasonably short amount of time to rule in my favor. (Both however were for clear-cut cases of "online vendor took an order and didn't bother to ship anything at all nor reply to Paypal inquiries".)
badRNG 6y ago
I've been in two different situations where I have had obviously fraudulent charges on my PayPal. In both cases, PayPal denied my claim. In both cases, Discover approved charge-backs for the PayPal charges to my card.
- droopyEyelids 6y ago
  Did PayPal ban you after the Discover charge-back?
  - badRNG 6y ago
    Nope, still use them for a handful of things (for convenience.) The charge-backs were of significant size too ($300-$500.) This was around 2012-2013 for one and around 2015 for the other.
  - ryan-c 6y ago
    Oddly, I have actually been told in the past by PayPal to file a $1500 dispute with my credit card company (AmEx in my case) because for whatever reason they couldn't handle it internally. Didn't get banned.
mcv 6y ago
I thought PayPal had a reputation for pro-actively blocking payments for really bad reasons, and now they won't block payment when it's a clear case of fraud? Why does anyone still use PayPal?

_-___________-_ 6y ago

The amazing thing is that they are equally unpleasant to deal with as a merchant. You'd think they just favoured one side, but no, they screw both sides.

readams 6y ago
PayPal fraud protection is mostly about making sure PayPal isn't the one holding the bag in the end. Any actual prevention of fraud is secondary at best.
- ezconnect 6y ago
  They have a recent change that is anti merchant, when someone request for a refund they wont give back the transaction fee. Seller lose out on the sale and pay paypal a transaction fee, buyer get their full money and paypal keeps the transaction fee. It used to be returned to the merchant.
  - encom 6y ago
    I'm honestly surprised Paypal is still in business. Everybody hates Paypal.
    - tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
      The power of network effect. You can't afford to not accept PayPal because all the buyers have it, and all the buyers have it because you can pay with it everywhere. An alternative network would have a hard time getting users to sign up.
  - stjohnswarts 6y ago
    yeah it's more like "we've had 100 complaints about this one guy, probably ought to shut him down now"

novaRom 6y ago

Exactly this. In my recent experience PayPal is also absolutely inaccessible for a chargeback resolution. This was the reason I left booking.com, now I am considering to get rid of PayPal. In my opinion no serious transaction should ever be done on either platform.

tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
What issues did you have with Booking.com and what are good alternatives? I absolutely loathe them for their high-pressure sales tactics (their site is full of dark patterns and booking there is outright stressful; it feels like you're trying to browse while a drill sergeant is constantly yelling into your ear "BOOK NOW YOU WORTHLESS SCUM, BOOK, BOOK, WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR YOU IMBECILE, CLICK IT, BOOK, NOW, NOW YOU MAGGOT") - however, unfortunately they often do have the best price (by far) or are the only place certain accommodations are available, and aside from the drill sergeant, their UX is absolutely perfect. I've been burned far too often with sites that let you go through the entire flow only to tack on ridiculous fees for payment or simply fail to process your credit card.

time0ut 6y ago

I came here to say this as well. PayPal is garbage and should never be used, at least as a consumer. There are much better options available. I have never had PayPal side with me in any dispute, no matter how one sided it was. I closed my account in 2014. Haven't missed it.

Osiris 6y ago

That's weird. As a merchant, I get requests for refunds and even if I provide all the details about the transaction (for me that would be a license key and proof the license key was used) they always side with the buyer. Really, the only way to not get PayPal to approve a refund is to work with the customer and solve the problem so the customer cancels the refund request.

jonplackett 6y ago
I think it's A) because it's Facebook. and B) because this type of scam is very prevalent, and no-one wants to be stuck with the numerous bills for it.

fireattack 6y ago

Why? The payment is authorized by the author (i.e. his PP account wasn't stolen), the whole thing being a scam is irrelevant and PayPal shouldn't be the judge here (if you got scammed and send some physical items to the scammer, can you ask the post office to take it back?) I sold digital goods on eBay a few times (like, less than 10 times) and I've already got 3 (!) people claiming their purchase is "unauthorized" after I sent them the goods (redeem codes, so I can't really let them "return"). I'm more than glad that PayPal took my stance instead of giving them chargeback, since they're likely trying to scam me.

lalaithion 6y ago
If the author had payed with a credit card, he could have gotten a refund, and it would be the responsibility of the credit card Issuer to track down the merchant and get a refund.
- fireattack 6y ago
  And if he has paid with a debit card or wire transfer, he would be even more out of luck than PayPal. Why would we (I'm genuinely asking here) consider PayPal more similar to CC than the others? My point being, it could be (closer to) either, and both make sense to me. PP doesn't necessarily need to operate like CC. After all, CC as a service charges much more with processing fees from merchants and sometimes annual fees from the customers. It's meant to provide a "better/premium" service.
- megablast 6y ago
  Not necessarily.
nerdponx 6y ago
The payment is authorized by the author (i.e. his PP account wasn't stolen), the whole thing being a scam is irrelevant and PayPal shouldn't be the judge here (if you got scammed and send some physical items to the scammer, can you ask the post office to take it back?) PayPal does have a 6 month purchase protection policy in many cases. So... maybe, if you manage to argue that this was a purchase that you're entitled to protection for. But that's a different channel and probably a different physical department at the company.