3 ms·

This article is extremely confusing and filled with do many errors it's hard to even list them all. However, the bit I wanted to focus on was the author's claim

This article is extremely confusing and filled with do many errors it's hard to even list them all. However, the bit I wanted to focus on was the author's claim that PayPal got "sued" and "stopped taking money from people". Getting sued is part of the ordinary course of business for a company like PayPal, and ~85% of lawsuits like that go nowhere, and result in no internal changes. The specific lawsuit the author seems to have been talking about was dismissed entirely by a judge in July, because the contact you sign with Facebook when you use their account explicitly forbids you from suing them instead of going through private arbitration proceedings: https://www.pokertube.com/article/chris-moneymaker-s-class-action-lawsuit-against-paypal-falls-at-first-hurdle https://www.pokertube.com/article/chris-moneymaker-s-class-a... (Chris Moneymaker's Class Action Lawsuit Against PayPal Falls At First Hurdle). And again, this is the kind of thing that happens to PayPal all the time. The fact that some random lawsuit that never even required a substantial reply from PayPal got picked up by Zed as evidence of their bad behavior "finally catching up to them" really erodes my confidence in the way he represents any of the other details in this article. What else is he misrepresenting or exaggerating?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Dawnyhff2 4y ago
xwowsersx 4y ago
"the contact you sign with Facebook"? I am so confused. Do you mean the contract you sign with PayPal?
- nightpool 4y ago
  Whoops, yes. I think I was talking to someone about Facebook in a different window when drafting this comment orz. Unfortunately, I didn't notice this reply in time to edit my comment. Thanks for pointing it out anyway :)
  - xwowsersx 4y ago
    hehe all good, just making sure I wasn't missing some much more interesting story here :P
spinlock 4y ago
I didn’t realize this was Zed until reading your comment. Now I’m smirking thinking of Mr. Shaw getting frustrated by implementing payments “the hard way.”
pierrebai 4y ago
There are many suit and claims against Paypal. Most of them are settled out of court. Many are exactly about account freezing. The fact that one went to court but was dismissed does not prove that Paypal does not engage in bad bahaviour. It's not merely the cost of doing business, it's the cost of avoiding judgements against bad practices. Do note that Paypal did lose some suits, notably in Quebec for example, where customers protection laws are stronger and arbitration clauses in user agreements cannot force you to forfeit rights you have under the law, in particular to sue. https://lastattorney.com/paypal-class-action-lawsuit-settlement-announced/ https://lastattorney.com/paypal-class-action-lawsuit-settlem...
- nightpool 4y ago
  I think you're misinterpreting my comment. I'm not saying that PayPal is good—far from it. I'm saying that the evidence that Zed has presented in favor of PayPal being good (and better then Stripe!) is one random court case that got dismissed 4 months ago, and that's completely nonsensical. I think we both agree that Zed saying "because of one random court case, PayPal has stopped freezing accounts" is just nonsense. So I'm confused about what you're actually disagreeing with with in my comment.
kweks 4y ago
PayPal has not stopped their freeze/seize gambit. A few examples of these clauses being exercised were on HN (both cases pending) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29935515 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29935515 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32739950 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32739950 If it wasn't obvious, cherry-picking bits and pieces from various jurisdictions isn't legal; PayPal deftly deflects any legal challenges to their various dispersed entities making them essentially untouchable if you don't have unlimited resources. If anyone is interested, in the EU, this is their playbook: - Ignore all communications unless it's a C&D from lawyers - Deflect responsibility to PayPal Luxembourg. - They have, or have had literally 90% of LU lawyers retained, meaning your case will not / cannot be accepted by the majority of LU law-firms due to conflict of interest - Deflect onto the CSSF (Luxembourg Monetary Watchdog) - Respond to the CSSF that the complaining company is not based in Luxembourg, which results in the CSSF concluding that they are not the competent structure to rule. - Case closed, your funds have been stolen, and PayPal has artfully dodged the relevant regulatory bodies.
- rosnd 4y ago
  Your story makes no sense at all. Why would you need LU lawyers? You can totally sue PayPal in your local court.
kweks 4y ago
Other elements are simply incorrect. If a customer lodges a chargeback, you pay a chargeback fee : https://www.paypal.com/ca/smarthelp/article/what-is-the-chargeback-fee-faq1557 https://www.paypal.com/ca/smarthelp/article/what-is-the-char...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Dawnyhff2 4y ago

xwowsersx 4y ago

"the contact you sign with Facebook"? I am so confused. Do you mean the contract you sign with PayPal?

nightpool 4y ago
Whoops, yes. I think I was talking to someone about Facebook in a different window when drafting this comment orz. Unfortunately, I didn't notice this reply in time to edit my comment. Thanks for pointing it out anyway :)
- xwowsersx 4y ago
  hehe all good, just making sure I wasn't missing some much more interesting story here :P

spinlock 4y ago

I didn’t realize this was Zed until reading your comment. Now I’m smirking thinking of Mr. Shaw getting frustrated by implementing payments “the hard way.”

pierrebai 4y ago

There are many suit and claims against Paypal. Most of them are settled out of court. Many are exactly about account freezing. The fact that one went to court but was dismissed does not prove that Paypal does not engage in bad bahaviour. It's not merely the cost of doing business, it's the cost of avoiding judgements against bad practices. Do note that Paypal did lose some suits, notably in Quebec for example, where customers protection laws are stronger and arbitration clauses in user agreements cannot force you to forfeit rights you have under the law, in particular to sue. https://lastattorney.com/paypal-class-action-lawsuit-settlement-announced/ https://lastattorney.com/paypal-class-action-lawsuit-settlem...

nightpool 4y ago
I think you're misinterpreting my comment. I'm not saying that PayPal is good—far from it. I'm saying that the evidence that Zed has presented in favor of PayPal being good (and better then Stripe!) is one random court case that got dismissed 4 months ago, and that's completely nonsensical. I think we both agree that Zed saying "because of one random court case, PayPal has stopped freezing accounts" is just nonsense. So I'm confused about what you're actually disagreeing with with in my comment.

kweks 4y ago

PayPal has not stopped their freeze/seize gambit. A few examples of these clauses being exercised were on HN (both cases pending) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29935515 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29935515 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32739950 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32739950 If it wasn't obvious, cherry-picking bits and pieces from various jurisdictions isn't legal; PayPal deftly deflects any legal challenges to their various dispersed entities making them essentially untouchable if you don't have unlimited resources. If anyone is interested, in the EU, this is their playbook: - Ignore all communications unless it's a C&D from lawyers - Deflect responsibility to PayPal Luxembourg. - They have, or have had literally 90% of LU lawyers retained, meaning your case will not / cannot be accepted by the majority of LU law-firms due to conflict of interest - Deflect onto the CSSF (Luxembourg Monetary Watchdog) - Respond to the CSSF that the complaining company is not based in Luxembourg, which results in the CSSF concluding that they are not the competent structure to rule. - Case closed, your funds have been stolen, and PayPal has artfully dodged the relevant regulatory bodies.

rosnd 4y ago
Your story makes no sense at all. Why would you need LU lawyers? You can totally sue PayPal in your local court.

kweks 4y ago

Other elements are simply incorrect. If a customer lodges a chargeback, you pay a chargeback fee : https://www.paypal.com/ca/smarthelp/article/what-is-the-chargeback-fee-faq1557 https://www.paypal.com/ca/smarthelp/article/what-is-the-char...