4 ms·
Paypal is 100% right in this case though
by scott31 6y ago
Paypal is 100% right in this case though
- 0xFluegel 6y agoIs it though? It surely is authenticated but is it authorized? By whom? Certainly not by the user.
- luckylion 6y agoThe 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 agoAnd if the same charges had been made on a Visa card, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
- basch 6y agoIf 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 agoI'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.
- behringer 6y agoIn what world would paypal be right? Facebook allowed a scammer to advertise on their platform, and then allowed the same scammer to steal 4k. Facebook is as much complicit in this crime as the criminal himself. Paypal was charged by Facebook. Facebook should not be entitled to the 4k and PayPal should take it back.