45 ms·

PayPal restores to its TOS $2,500 charge for any post they don't like

353 points by mhb 4y ago

NautilusWave 4y ago
Is there an easy way to scrape the TOS posted by each of the different services en masse? It'd be interesting to check them into a git repo and track changes.
hobbitstan 4y ago
I cancelled my PayPal account after it was first announced a few weeks ago. This just makes me even more sure it wasn’t a ‘mistake’ on their part.
- minraws 4y ago
  I am curious to understand the reasoning behind people saying it was a mistake, like how does something that big get past all the C-suites, F-suites and every other suite people of the company... Like I mean seriously was everyone blind!?
  - andrekandre 4y ago
    whats the f-suite?
    - andirk 4y ago
      Also called the Champagne Room
      - andrekandre 4y ago
        ahhh, f = financial? top investor class?
    - mlambie 4y ago
  - wtcactus 4y ago
    Well, PayPal did say, several times, it was just an internal error and that they, absolutely, weren't going to implement that measure. [1] Some people were also reporting, that when closing their account, a message stating the measure was not going to be implemented was shown up in the screen (but I didn't see any clear proof that was true). [1] https://news.yahoo.com/paypal-policy-permits-company-fine-143946902.html https://news.yahoo.com/paypal-policy-permits-company-fine-14...
  - Beltalowda 4y ago
    It could conceivable just be something like a developer using the wrong draft version, the lawyer accidentally sending the wrong version after a few rounds of back-and-forths over potential drafts, or some other fairly silly mix-up like that. Of course calling it a "mistake" is more likely to be corporate spin and back-pedalling, but you can never be quite sure because the explanation could be true, and that's kind of the point of the spin.
- LinuxBender 4y ago
  Same here. I had an account from 2002 and closed it without a second thought. On the plus side, they sent an individual email for each business or person that I had a payment set up with even if it was not recurring which made it very easy to figure out what vendors I needed to update.
- freedude 4y ago
  The mistake is that Paypal doesn't "understand" what a customer is or how to retain them.
- atlgator 4y ago
  Don't forget to cancel Venmo as well, if you have it.
ccvannorman 4y ago
Is there any source for this other than Twitter? Is PayPal's TOS public? I was unable to find a reliable source for this in my Google search just now, the best I can find is https://mindmatters.ai/2022/10/paypal-can-still-fine-its-users-2500-for-wrongthink/ https://mindmatters.ai/2022/10/paypal-can-still-fine-its-use...
- ccvannorman 4y ago
  The tweet links to https://gritdaily.com/pr-crisis-paypal/ https://gritdaily.com/pr-crisis-paypal/ Paypal's TOS mention $2,500 fine for "Acceptable use" violations but that has to do with sending money. NOT what you post online. https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full https://www.paypal.com/us/legalhub/acceptableuse-full https://www.paypal.com/us/legalhub/acceptableuse-full
  - nicce 4y ago
    > including, but not limited to, internal administrative costs incurred by PayPal to monitor and track violations, damage to PayPal’s brand and reputation, and penalties imposed upon PayPal by its business partners resulting from a user’s violation - considering all currently existing circumstances, including the relationship of the sum to the range of harm to PayPal that reasonably could be anticipated because, due to the nature of the violations of the Acceptable Use Policy, actual damages would be impractical or extremely difficult to calculate. PayPal may deduct such damages directly from any existing balance in any PayPal account you control. This is such a board statement than they an decide whatever they want and pull that fine. And if we look for the Acceptable Use Policy, there is a line: > (f) the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory or the financial exploitation of a crime https://www.paypal.com/us/legalhub/acceptableuse-full https://www.paypal.com/us/legalhub/acceptableuse-full
- mikestew 4y ago
  One could try typing "PayPal terms of service" into a search engine. If your experience mirrors mine, it will be the first link. Here, I'll save you some scrolling: https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full#restricted-activities https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full#...
user3939382 4y ago
Remember the guy who collected tens of thousands of dollars for Katrina victims and PayPal just closed their account and stole all the money? This POS company is a blight on humanity. Neither their executives nor the government officials that should be regulating them care, since they’re all laughing all the way to the bank.
- mangosteenjuice 4y ago
- minraws 4y ago
  I honestly want to see govt. regulate this, I am honestly curious how can these guys have been evading govt regulation for so long, like this is getting as bad if not much worse than Big Tech. Or maybe it's part of big tech, this bs just doesn't make any sense to me.
- quickthrowman 4y ago
  > Remember the guy who collected tens of thousands of dollars for Katrina victims and PayPal just closed their account and stole all the money? I do remember that guy, his name was Richard “Lowtax” Kyanka (he died). PayPal offered to donate the money to United Way, and Lowtax refused. The money was refunded by PayPal to the donators minus forex fees[0]. [0] https://www.wired.com/2005/09/paypal-freezes-out-katrina-aid/ https://www.wired.com/2005/09/paypal-freezes-out-katrina-aid...
  - parker_mountain 4y ago
    > PayPal offered to donate the money to United Way, and Lowtax refused It's important to remember why Lowtax refused: >The Paypal representative said they can only donate money to the United Way; you know, the organization where the president was sued for stealing half a million dollars from them. You know, the organization with a loathsome two star rating, that spends nearly double the amount of money in "administrative overhead" (read: advertising) as Red Cross. It turns out that this is what the United Way is famous for. They weasel their way into companies and sign contracts with them, blocking the corporations from accepting donations to any other charity. I guess it's fitting Paypal chose to team up with them. https://www.somethingawful.com/news/paypal-fiasco-summary/ https://www.somethingawful.com/news/paypal-fiasco-summary/
indigodaddy 4y ago
This is relevant mainly to sellers, would that be correct? Also, is this a “fee” that becomes due on some sort of bill that you can choose to ignore, or can/will they actually pull money from a linked account?
- torstenvl 4y ago
  They won't pull it from a linked account, just your PayPal balance... for now. "You acknowledge and agree that $2,500.00 U.S. dollars per violation of the Acceptable Use Policy is presently a reasonable minimum estimate of PayPal’s actual damages.... PayPal may deduct such damages directly from any existing balance in any PayPal account you control." https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full#restricted-activities https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full#...
  - CodeSgt 4y ago
    Hmm. And what do they do if you don't maintain a $2500 balance in any linked accounts? Do they send it to collections? Garnish any received money recieved to the account until the amount is paid in full? Both?
    - sieabahlpark 4y ago
    - freedude 4y ago
      ::knock:: ::knock:: "Who is it?" "This is Guido and my buddy Johnny Boy. We just want to talk about your negative Paypal balance and your recent injury to your kneecaps." "My knees are fine..."
mhb 4y ago
This does not seem to be accurate. I couldn't find anything in their TOS other than reasonable sounding restrictions on what can be sold. Sorry. https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full https://www.paypal.com/us/legalhub/acceptableuse-full https://www.paypal.com/us/legalhub/acceptableuse-full
- torstenvl 4y ago
  Admittedly I haven't done a close read, but on first skimming I didn't see anything that limits this to commercial transactions between arms-length buyers and sellers. Where are you getting that from? To my view, there's a world of difference between "You can't use PayPal as a payment processor for gun sales" and "You can't use PayPal to pay pals back for covering your range fees last Saturday." Yet the AUP seems broad enough to cover both: "You may not use the PayPal service for activities that... relate to transactions involving... ammunition, firearms, or certain firearm parts or accessories...." https://www.paypal.com/us/legalhub/acceptableuse-full https://www.paypal.com/us/legalhub/acceptableuse-full
  - Test0129 4y ago
    > To my view, there's a world of difference between "You can't use PayPal as a payment processor for gun sales" and "You can't use PayPal to pay pals back for covering your range fees last Saturday." Firearms are for absolutely no reason what-so-ever taboo on most payment processors. The AUP is broad enough to cover both because the pearl clutchers don't see a difference. The best part of this is "certain firearm parts or accessories" as if they had a qualified expert anywhere in their company that could identify a bolt from a slide. It's deliberately written to trap you, and now, extort you for $2,500.
    - shocked1129 4y ago
      I think it's simpler than that. Some executive didn't want to have to hire a PR crisis management firm if some kid shot up his school with a gun bought through their payment system. Same with a lot of other stuff. It's all about money.
roxgib 4y ago
Right now there's a private equity firm somewhere scheming to buy out PayPal and confiscate everyone's money
Bellend 4y ago
I used to use paypal for everything but it occurred to me that I haven't used it since 2018. What niche does it support that direct payments don't? When I think of paypal, I think of delays.
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  When it comes to banking there are a lot of modern "shortcuts" that make it safe and painless pretty much everywhere in the world. The problem is that there's also a lot of inertia. For every "shortcut" user, there are hundreds if not thousands of users who don't know about and use sub-par systems (such as PayPal) instead. Shitty companies like PayPal (or various banks which still charge insane fees for wire/ACH transfers) rely on that. --- For me, PayPal is only a route in, as a fallback for those who really can't use anything else. If you decide to use it to pay me (despite my warnings and alternative suggestions), I make it very clear that you are on the hook for any issues arising from it - PayPal money is only considered paid when it hits my real bank account - if they seize the money beforehand, it's as if you haven't paid me and it will be up to you to help me resolve the situation. That's how people should be using this scum. Similarly, if I pay a supplier via PayPal and they refuse to deliver the goods, the supplier is getting their ass sued for goods/services non-rendered. The fact they use a crooked payment processor (despite my advice) isn't my fault at the end of the day.
  - wobbly_bush 4y ago
    > When it comes to banking there are a lot of modern "shortcuts" that make it safe and painless pretty much everywhere in the world. Can you elaborate what shortcuts are you referring to in this context?
- Andys 4y ago
  I like using it for subscriptions, because it lists them all in one place and gives me a hassle-free way to cancel each of them.
- OmahaBoy69 4y ago
  >What niche does it support that direct payments don't? For buying stuff online it removes the need to fiddle around with CCs (+ trusting individual websites with CC info) and lets you checkout quickly. It's also great if you get scammed out of your money somehow... Their chargeback system is stupidly easy and is infamous for always siding with the buyer. It sucks when you're on the other side of the transaction, though. Used to run a Minecraft server as a teenager, and they gave me a huge amount of grief between indisputable chargebacks and locking my account once for KYC purposes.
puffoflogic 4y ago
Given that everyone who cared and was willing to leave over the issue did leave, it would have been irrational for PayPal to do anything else.
- Dig1t 4y ago
  I use PayPal to collect rent, I was waiting until the end of the month to cancel my account to make sure another method would work before cancelling my account. To be honest I kind of forgot I was going to do that, but now this has definitely renewed my determination to delete my PayPal account. What a scummy company.
shiado 4y ago
Is there a good ToS/EULA diff site? It would be nice to see how and when these things change across many services.
- asicsp 4y ago
  This might help: "Ask HN: Any “Git diff”-like service but for when terms of conditions changes?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21564850 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21564850
humanlity 4y ago
Today they can charge this, tomorrow I can't imagine
- tenpies 4y ago
  Tomorrow all charges get a referral to the Act Blue shared database with the FBI.
labster 4y ago
Wow, great news! Now everyone who says anything racist will have to put $2500 into the swear jar. I expect racism will disappear overnight, and we will have a plushappy society with institutionalized love for all. Thanks PayPal!
- eurasiantiger 4y ago
  PayPalBot recognizes your discourse as sarcastic and diminutive, both of which are specified offenses under the PayPal Terms of Service. Your account has been charged a one-time, irrecoverable fee of $2,500.
- origin_path 4y ago
  - m-p-3 4y ago
    PayPal might be one of the worst company out there, but criticizing them on their contribution to the afro-american community is not one I'd make.
    - origin_path 4y ago
      And if PayPal was funding exclusively the "white European/American male" community, such that organizations that cared equally about black people were not eligible for their cash, do you think that would pass by unremarked? Of course it's not a "contribution", it's racism in which people are being given money because of the color of their skin.
      - m-p-3 4y ago
        That's called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action
        origin_path 4y ago
jdkee 4y ago
Closed my account after 20 years. Bye bye.
jiveturkey 4y ago
Seems to be overstating the case in some ways, and understating in others. My reading is that this applies to transactions that promote violence, obscenity, etc. Yes it is indeed awful and deserving of ridicule, but it's not a charge against your non-transaction related activity. So in that sense the headline is overstating the case. I'm only finding pitchfork raising junk sources right now, but anyway those say that this applied to seller activity in the last go-round. My reading of https://www.paypal.com/us/legalhub/acceptableuse-full https://www.paypal.com/us/legalhub/acceptableuse-full is that this "now" applies to either side of a transaction. So in that sense, the headline is understating the new problem. That AUP happens to also have a date of 9/21/21 so apparently this has been in effect for over a year. Why isn't that called out?
ilaksh 4y ago
The stuff that concerns me just as much as the policing of opinions is all the list of things requiring pre-approval. I have web applications that my customers pay for with cryptocurrency, sometimes use telemedicine or make an adult purchase. It seems like I am supposed to discuss all of my personal life and business ahead of time with PayPal and then I would still be just kind of hoping for good will.
- tenpies 4y ago
  The beauty of this (as far as US weaponization of law is concerned) is that yes, you are correct. But because there is functionally no customer service at Paypal, the Legal Department is customer service. So to even talk to Paypal about these things you would have to spend thousands of dollars and several months. And when you make a mistake in a way Paypal doesn't like, you'll be obliterated. Those of us who grew or lived in the third world will recognize the current status of US law under Biden quite clearly: "For my friends, anything. For my enemies? The law!", it's just now extended down to the consumer ToS level.
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    > Those of us who grew or lived in the third world will recognize the current status of US law under Biden quite clearly: ... What does Biden have to do with it? Are you implying this wasn't also true under Trump? He pardoned a bunch of his friends on the way out.
    - raincom 4y ago
      Prosecutorial discretion is how one does political favors.
  - thatguy0900 4y ago
    I wasn't aware Biden overhauled laws around PayPal money handling recently
Test0129 4y ago
This is neither shocking, nor new. A decade ago I remember a friend who had a small business selling some niche collectors items. One day, he was scammed. The guy reported that the package was never delivered and, without even investigating, Paypal banned my friend's account and awarded the buyer their money back. Paypal has always, and will always be a shit company. Charging people $2,500 for wrongthink is simply asinine. They must be betting BIG on either woke politics being mainstream for the long term, unbreakable bonds with their existing customers, or both. I can't even think of someone around me that uses paypal regularly. I will be interested in reading the technical report on how they plan on implementing this because I'm sure it'll be silicon valley diarrhea. I am currently working out how to pay companies in a similar fashion to Paypal. I'm looking at Privacy.com but something is off about it to me for some reason. Once that is solved I'll get this ape off my back forever. I wonder what happens if I just say "lol, not paying" to them. Would they put me in collections? It seems infeasible to even enforce this and it strikes me that clicking a button doesn't amount of a legal agreement.
- willsmith72 4y ago
  I guess you're not in Europe. Paypal is huge here, especially in Germany. Has been useful for years here for free instant transactions without currency conversion fees (at least between some euro currencies)
  - Test0129 4y ago
    Interesting. I'd imagine here most of the apps people use for that (Cash app, Zelle, etc) are just frontends for Paypal.
    - pie_flavor 4y ago
      Zelle is a direct bank transfer system.
    - acchow 4y ago
      They are not. Cash was built using unlinked refunds over visa to do direct deposit onto visa debit cards. For ACH, it uses normal ACH rails. Zelle…was built by the big banks…
kokizzu2 4y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuHX9s6ek2w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuHX9s6ek2w
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago
Thats why decentralised value exchange is important. Any centralised solution is subject to arbitrary imposed limitations. Imagine if Paypal controlled the air you breath.
smsm42 4y ago
I don't think the language they are citing was ever gone from the TOS. I checked it couple weeks ago and it was there. Essentially if you have a seller account and any funds in PayPal, you agree that they can take $2500 from it for anything they don't like about you, per instance. Doesn't seem to apply to regular transfers or non-seller accounts though. Also, technically they are right saying "misinformation" is not on the list - it isn't, only a dozen of other things among which is "other forms of intolerance", "promotion of hate", "considered obscene", - which is determined by them and you agree in advance each time will cost you $2500 per pop.
phendrenad2 4y ago
This is fake news clickbait. Let's look at what this actually says: This only applies to sellers who have violated the TOS. And you are only agreeing that $2,500 is the likely minimum fine for a TOS violation, and that they can take that from any account you have linked. (Of course, I'm not a lawyer.)
- phendrenad2 4y ago
  Wow the downvotes. I guess the qanon brigade is here.
  - CrazyPyroLinux 4y ago
    The biggest conspiracy theory is that those who disagree with you are conspiracy theorists...
    - phendrenad2 4y ago
      That's a nice trite little saying, but it doesn't fit reality. I mean it's not like an angry group of right-wing people reply to every single tweet by democratic politicians, right? Why do you think HN is above that kind of thing? And a story that claims that PayPal is out to hamper free speech is exactly the kind of lightning rod that would attract such people.
      - CrazyPyroLinux 4y ago
        Trite? You're the one who brought up BlueAnon. (And if you're going to virtue-signal "HN is above that kind of thing," I'll remind you that whining about downvotes is against the guidelines) There seems to me to be plenty of room for interpretation (and potential for foul play) in the TOS. Maybe that's an exaggeration, but to call it a "fake news clickbait" is disingenuous.
        phendrenad2 4y ago
        If there's room for interpretation, and you say "it absolutely means this very clickbaity interpretation" then yes, you are doing a clickbait, my friend.
midislack 4y ago
But the guy said it was a mistake, isn't this just making him a liar now?
psyfi 4y ago
This is what we should expect if CDBC became widespread
- polski-g 4y ago
  The First Amendment would prevent a CDBC from closing your account for your online speech. A CDBC would be a huge improvement over PayPal.
  - freedude 4y ago
    A CDBC tracks every transaction and creates a system rife for abuse by tyrants at large organizations. They say that reasonable people have nothing to be concerned about. Ok, Just define "reasonable" by who's standards on which subject.
  - realce 4y ago
    Yeah just like how the 5th amendment prevents your funds from being stolen by law enforcement for baseless suspicion. Those amendments are iron-clad, water-tight, and applied evenly to all citizens!
    - treeman79 4y ago
      Vote for constitutional judges then. Like Clarence Thomas. He doesn’t give a flying $&! what people wants. He votes what the constitution says.
      - notch656a 4y ago
        You can't vote directly for supreme court justice. At best you have to temper guessing when the next one is gonna croak and deciding whether you want to vote for the candidate who will nominate/confirm the justice you want, or vote for the candidate that better fits your position in the event none of them croak.
        treeman79 4y ago
abracadabra_ 4y ago
I don't agree with PayPal's decision here but I'm failing to see how it's as broad as people seem to be making it. The TOS specifically say that you may not use PayPal for promotion of hate etc. So you might not be able to buy a Nazi flag via PayPal but there's nothing there, for example, to stop you posting an image of a Nazi flag on Twitter.
throwaway22032 4y ago
How exactly do conditions like this work in practice? I can go ahead and write a ToS or even a contract that says "if you don't give me a blue M&M on Saturday 29 October 2022, you owe me $1M". I can get a client to sign it, perhaps it's part of my conditions as a freelancer. I can't realistically see any court enforcing that. As far as I can tell PayPal can only get away with this nonsense because they hold your money anyway. It's exactly the sort of reason people are fighting against cashless/custodial financial systems.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  >How exactly do conditions like this work in practice? They take the money and bet on not enough people trying to sue and the terms being ironclad enough if they do that they get away with it in general even if they have to pay out a few times.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
  > As far as I can tell PayPal can only get away with this nonsense because they hold your money anyway. And they're not subject to banking regulations in the US. If they were a bank they wouldn't be able to pull this sort of BS.
- treeman79 4y ago
  You gave me a bunch of money. There is an understanding (tos) that it’s now my money. I may or may not let you have it back depending on my whims. Since you “gave” me the money, then I can do whatever I want with it. Oh and I can take whatever money out of your bank account it want. Because I want it
- gahikr 4y ago
  I've wondered how far these TOS via clicks can go and what would actually stand up in court. I'm also surprised an activist hasn't attached a TOS to sending payments such as "By accepting my money you agree to pay me $1 Million dollars for any time I spend more that 5 minutes with customer service without my dispute being settled." I seem to remember a case where someone altered the fine print agreement on a credit card application and the credit card company lost the case with the consumer, but I forget the details.
jpkoning 4y ago
The Grit Daily article cited in the linked-to tweet is fake news. It alleges that PayPal's proposed misinformation clause and associated $2500 penalty, which was cancelled by PayPal earlier this month, has been quietly "added back into the terms of service with equally ambiguous language." This can be proven wrong with a quick check of PayPal's acceptable use policy in the WayBack Machine. The $2500 fine that the article alleges has been added back after "criticism on social media died down" has been there since 2021. [https://web.archive.org/web/20211013092233/https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/acceptableuse-full?locale.x=en_US https://web.archive.org/web/20211013092233/https://www.paypa...] As for article's allegation that a prohibition on intolerance has just been added this October, that clause been there since 2018. [https://web.archive.org/web/20181108164503/https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/acceptableuse-full?locale.x=en_US https://web.archive.org/web/20181108164503/https://www.paypa...]. So there is no justification to the article's allegation that the clauses have been quietly added back to PayPal acceptable use policy. Furthermore, in building its argument that the misinformation clause was sneakily "added back into the terms of service," the article erroneously makes the assumption that a prohibition on intolerance equates to a prohibition on misinformation. This doesn't follow. I'm not trying to support PayPal's acceptable use policy. But if you're going to attack it, at least use facts.
- tyen_ 4y ago
  Oh, I guess there's no problem since it has been in there for a year. Thanks for clearing that up!
hlesesne 4y ago
I checked the internet archive (wayback machine) and don't see that the AUP has changed significantly in recent months. While I continue to disagree with PayPal's stance and ambiguous language, the article led me to believe that they'd snuck it back in. I don't see anything mentioning "mis-information" in the AUP, but there are still plenty of completely subjective language in the document. It seems to be this garbage has been the same the whole time.
slenk 4y ago
Paypal shut down my business account without any explanation to why after I received one donation from YouTube streaming. Fuck Paypal hard.
- miohtama 4y ago
  Likely somebody made a payment with a stolen credit card.
  - ratsmack 4y ago
    And why would that be the problem of the receiving end of the transaction?
    - grepfru_it 4y ago
      Money laundering
      - hayd 4y ago
        But this could happen to any business, and surely does. Completely turning off a business because it receives one fraudulent payment is not appropriate. Indeed, this hasn't been my experience with other billing platforms. Of course, we're taking the posters claim that this is what happened at face value...
        judge2020 4y ago
        If it's your first payment, you're pretty much done for. One of their targets is any operation where an entire business/yt account/paypal account is made to launder a single transaction and then left to rot.
Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
Paypal is on a mission to destroy its market value.
freedude 4y ago
When a business decides it must live your life for you to "protect" itself there are significant problems. Little brother is watching you...
bandrami 4y ago
Don't the ToS already basically say they can just take your money any time they want for no reason at all?
- counttheforks 4y ago
  That's the money you were already giving them to hold on to. They have now decided that you also agree to pay them even more money when they decide they don't like what you're doing. The clause says they may deduct it from any of your PayPal accounts, but if you haven't given them that much money to hold on to, you still owe them, and presumably they will come after you.
afrcnc 4y ago
The EU would like a word...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
BryantD 4y ago
I’m very wary of this change but it’s also very hard to discuss it rationally when people exaggerate it. Quoting the new User Agreement: “If you are a seller and receive funds for transactions that violate the Acceptable Use Policy, then … you will be liable to PayPal for the amount of PayPal’s damages caused by your violation of the Acceptable Use Policy. You acknowledge and agree that $2,500 U.S. dollars per violation … is presently a reasonable minimum estimate of PayPal’s actual damages.” I don’t think I do agree with that estimate. On the other hand, it’s a complete lie that PayPal said they can withdraw money from your bank account for saying something they don’t like. This is about sellers and transactions that violate the (somewhat vague) AUP. I think in the end I’ll choose not to engage in extended dialogue with people who misrepresent facts. This kind of crap just strengthens the divide in the US.
- CrazyPyroLinux 4y ago
  > I’ll choose not to [...] dialogue > just strengthens the divide Non sequitur, but ok. There seems to me to be plenty of room for interpretation (and potential for foul play) in the TOS. Maybe that's an exaggeration, but to call it a "complete lie" is itself to misrepresent facts.
  - BryantD 4y ago
    The linked tweet and article claim that PayPal can pull money out of your bank account. There's no way to interpret the ToS like that; it clearly says this possibility only applies to your PayPal account and any money in there.
Yorch 4y ago
I don't think any private company can give a fine aside from court. Not in my country. Only the goverment can write laws.
faeriechangling 4y ago
PayPal doesn’t have a monopoly anymore so this just seems bizarre. Visa, Google, Apple, etc run similar services on a massive scale. Then there’s of course crypto. For how rarely they are likely to actually enforce this, it just seems like a rather stupid hill to die on. Not just the initial decision but the attempt to try and sneak the terms back in.
- LightHugger 4y ago
  Paypal is well known for randomly stealing money from user accounts and has been known for this for over a decade. Their reputation is already rock bottom to anyone who would know about this latest debacle, and they make massive amounts of money for free by doing this. There is no reason at all for them to stop, unfortunately.
  - faeriechangling 4y ago
    They are but the optics here are especially jarring. First the political angle which is bad when you’re trying to sell to the entire population, and now the just very obviously cruel move to small business during economic hardship. It’s tempting people who shrugged their shoulders and used PayPal because they were a monopoly to re-evaluate if they should click PayPal in a checkout with Visa Checkout for instance.
shever73 4y ago
PayPal account closed after 21 years, Amazon account closed after 24.
ewzimm 4y ago
The first person who gets charged this fine could make a lot of money from publicity if they're smart about it. It's nice that this has been so widely circulated.
- notch656a 4y ago
  The first person they fine will be someone so undesirable that no one will like them or care to defend them. It's the same way the government commonly builds precedent into questionable laws -- start out for years to decades persecuting only extremely unlikeable persons who no one wants to defend, then after years of precedent and slowly boiling the frog unleash it on the greater populace.
  - ewzimm 4y ago
    This might be true, but I wonder if there's really anyone so unlikable that they couldn't find an audience in the long tail. Extremism unfortunately seems to be able to find a way despite deplatforming. See examples like Nick Fuentes who recently attracted some of the most prominent politicians to his conference.
gadders 4y ago
I mostly used PayPal so I didn't have to get up off the sofa when ordering stuff on my phone to find my credit card. Given the threat of fines for wrong-think, that's not a compelling enough use case.
- gadders 4y ago
  Just tried to do it and apparently I have a mysterious "pending transaction" that is stopping me closing my account. How convenient.
hayd 4y ago
Feels like only a month ago when Paypal were claiming that this change was an innocent mistake and not to read anything into it being leaked. ...shocked picacho face...
gnicholas 4y ago
It looks like these TOS are slightly narrower than before — they removed the word "depict" from the clause about violence/discrimination/etc. As originally drafted it would have included using PayPal to sell a DVD of a movie that depicts violence. The new TOS are still very broad, but they don't include these ridiculous cases, which obviously should never have been included. Perhaps when they said "oops, it was a mistake" they meant that the inclusion of a couple words like "depict" was a mistake, but the general thrust was exactly what they wanted.
DLA 4y ago
Yet more big tech over reach. Screw PayPal. Just killed my account. They are dead to me.

353 points by mhb 4y ago

Is there an easy way to scrape the TOS posted by each of the different services en masse? It'd be interesting to check them into a git repo and track changes.

hobbitstan 4y ago

I cancelled my PayPal account after it was first announced a few weeks ago. This just makes me even more sure it wasn’t a ‘mistake’ on their part.

minraws 4y ago
I am curious to understand the reasoning behind people saying it was a mistake, like how does something that big get past all the C-suites, F-suites and every other suite people of the company... Like I mean seriously was everyone blind!?
- andrekandre 4y ago
  whats the f-suite?
  - andirk 4y ago
    Also called the Champagne Room
    - andrekandre 4y ago
      ahhh, f = financial? top investor class?
  - mlambie 4y ago
- wtcactus 4y ago
  Well, PayPal did say, several times, it was just an internal error and that they, absolutely, weren't going to implement that measure. [1] Some people were also reporting, that when closing their account, a message stating the measure was not going to be implemented was shown up in the screen (but I didn't see any clear proof that was true). [1] https://news.yahoo.com/paypal-policy-permits-company-fine-143946902.html https://news.yahoo.com/paypal-policy-permits-company-fine-14...
- Beltalowda 4y ago
  It could conceivable just be something like a developer using the wrong draft version, the lawyer accidentally sending the wrong version after a few rounds of back-and-forths over potential drafts, or some other fairly silly mix-up like that. Of course calling it a "mistake" is more likely to be corporate spin and back-pedalling, but you can never be quite sure because the explanation could be true, and that's kind of the point of the spin.
LinuxBender 4y ago
Same here. I had an account from 2002 and closed it without a second thought. On the plus side, they sent an individual email for each business or person that I had a payment set up with even if it was not recurring which made it very easy to figure out what vendors I needed to update.
freedude 4y ago
The mistake is that Paypal doesn't "understand" what a customer is or how to retain them.
atlgator 4y ago
Don't forget to cancel Venmo as well, if you have it.

ccvannorman 4y ago

Is there any source for this other than Twitter? Is PayPal's TOS public? I was unable to find a reliable source for this in my Google search just now, the best I can find is https://mindmatters.ai/2022/10/paypal-can-still-fine-its-users-2500-for-wrongthink/ https://mindmatters.ai/2022/10/paypal-can-still-fine-its-use...

ccvannorman 4y ago
The tweet links to https://gritdaily.com/pr-crisis-paypal/ https://gritdaily.com/pr-crisis-paypal/ Paypal's TOS mention $2,500 fine for "Acceptable use" violations but that has to do with sending money. NOT what you post online. https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full https://www.paypal.com/us/legalhub/acceptableuse-full https://www.paypal.com/us/legalhub/acceptableuse-full
- nicce 4y ago
  > including, but not limited to, internal administrative costs incurred by PayPal to monitor and track violations, damage to PayPal’s brand and reputation, and penalties imposed upon PayPal by its business partners resulting from a user’s violation - considering all currently existing circumstances, including the relationship of the sum to the range of harm to PayPal that reasonably could be anticipated because, due to the nature of the violations of the Acceptable Use Policy, actual damages would be impractical or extremely difficult to calculate. PayPal may deduct such damages directly from any existing balance in any PayPal account you control. This is such a board statement than they an decide whatever they want and pull that fine. And if we look for the Acceptable Use Policy, there is a line: > (f) the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory or the financial exploitation of a crime https://www.paypal.com/us/legalhub/acceptableuse-full https://www.paypal.com/us/legalhub/acceptableuse-full
mikestew 4y ago
One could try typing "PayPal terms of service" into a search engine. If your experience mirrors mine, it will be the first link. Here, I'll save you some scrolling: https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full#restricted-activities https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full#...

user3939382 4y ago

Remember the guy who collected tens of thousands of dollars for Katrina victims and PayPal just closed their account and stole all the money? This POS company is a blight on humanity. Neither their executives nor the government officials that should be regulating them care, since they’re all laughing all the way to the bank.

mangosteenjuice 4y ago
minraws 4y ago
I honestly want to see govt. regulate this, I am honestly curious how can these guys have been evading govt regulation for so long, like this is getting as bad if not much worse than Big Tech. Or maybe it's part of big tech, this bs just doesn't make any sense to me.
quickthrowman 4y ago
> Remember the guy who collected tens of thousands of dollars for Katrina victims and PayPal just closed their account and stole all the money? I do remember that guy, his name was Richard “Lowtax” Kyanka (he died). PayPal offered to donate the money to United Way, and Lowtax refused. The money was refunded by PayPal to the donators minus forex fees[0]. [0] https://www.wired.com/2005/09/paypal-freezes-out-katrina-aid/ https://www.wired.com/2005/09/paypal-freezes-out-katrina-aid...
- parker_mountain 4y ago
  > PayPal offered to donate the money to United Way, and Lowtax refused It's important to remember why Lowtax refused: >The Paypal representative said they can only donate money to the United Way; you know, the organization where the president was sued for stealing half a million dollars from them. You know, the organization with a loathsome two star rating, that spends nearly double the amount of money in "administrative overhead" (read: advertising) as Red Cross. It turns out that this is what the United Way is famous for. They weasel their way into companies and sign contracts with them, blocking the corporations from accepting donations to any other charity. I guess it's fitting Paypal chose to team up with them. https://www.somethingawful.com/news/paypal-fiasco-summary/ https://www.somethingawful.com/news/paypal-fiasco-summary/

indigodaddy 4y ago

This is relevant mainly to sellers, would that be correct? Also, is this a “fee” that becomes due on some sort of bill that you can choose to ignore, or can/will they actually pull money from a linked account?

torstenvl 4y ago
They won't pull it from a linked account, just your PayPal balance... for now. "You acknowledge and agree that $2,500.00 U.S. dollars per violation of the Acceptable Use Policy is presently a reasonable minimum estimate of PayPal’s actual damages.... PayPal may deduct such damages directly from any existing balance in any PayPal account you control." https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full#restricted-activities https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full#...
- CodeSgt 4y ago
  Hmm. And what do they do if you don't maintain a $2500 balance in any linked accounts? Do they send it to collections? Garnish any received money recieved to the account until the amount is paid in full? Both?
  - sieabahlpark 4y ago
  - freedude 4y ago
    ::knock:: ::knock:: "Who is it?" "This is Guido and my buddy Johnny Boy. We just want to talk about your negative Paypal balance and your recent injury to your kneecaps." "My knees are fine..."

mhb 4y ago

This does not seem to be accurate. I couldn't find anything in their TOS other than reasonable sounding restrictions on what can be sold. Sorry. https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full https://www.paypal.com/us/legalhub/acceptableuse-full https://www.paypal.com/us/legalhub/acceptableuse-full

torstenvl 4y ago
Admittedly I haven't done a close read, but on first skimming I didn't see anything that limits this to commercial transactions between arms-length buyers and sellers. Where are you getting that from? To my view, there's a world of difference between "You can't use PayPal as a payment processor for gun sales" and "You can't use PayPal to pay pals back for covering your range fees last Saturday." Yet the AUP seems broad enough to cover both: "You may not use the PayPal service for activities that... relate to transactions involving... ammunition, firearms, or certain firearm parts or accessories...." https://www.paypal.com/us/legalhub/acceptableuse-full https://www.paypal.com/us/legalhub/acceptableuse-full
- Test0129 4y ago
  > To my view, there's a world of difference between "You can't use PayPal as a payment processor for gun sales" and "You can't use PayPal to pay pals back for covering your range fees last Saturday." Firearms are for absolutely no reason what-so-ever taboo on most payment processors. The AUP is broad enough to cover both because the pearl clutchers don't see a difference. The best part of this is "certain firearm parts or accessories" as if they had a qualified expert anywhere in their company that could identify a bolt from a slide. It's deliberately written to trap you, and now, extort you for $2,500.
  - shocked1129 4y ago
    I think it's simpler than that. Some executive didn't want to have to hire a PR crisis management firm if some kid shot up his school with a gun bought through their payment system. Same with a lot of other stuff. It's all about money.

roxgib 4y ago

Right now there's a private equity firm somewhere scheming to buy out PayPal and confiscate everyone's money

Bellend 4y ago

I used to use paypal for everything but it occurred to me that I haven't used it since 2018. What niche does it support that direct payments don't? When I think of paypal, I think of delays.

Nextgrid 4y ago
When it comes to banking there are a lot of modern "shortcuts" that make it safe and painless pretty much everywhere in the world. The problem is that there's also a lot of inertia. For every "shortcut" user, there are hundreds if not thousands of users who don't know about and use sub-par systems (such as PayPal) instead. Shitty companies like PayPal (or various banks which still charge insane fees for wire/ACH transfers) rely on that. --- For me, PayPal is only a route in, as a fallback for those who really can't use anything else. If you decide to use it to pay me (despite my warnings and alternative suggestions), I make it very clear that you are on the hook for any issues arising from it - PayPal money is only considered paid when it hits my real bank account - if they seize the money beforehand, it's as if you haven't paid me and it will be up to you to help me resolve the situation. That's how people should be using this scum. Similarly, if I pay a supplier via PayPal and they refuse to deliver the goods, the supplier is getting their ass sued for goods/services non-rendered. The fact they use a crooked payment processor (despite my advice) isn't my fault at the end of the day.
- wobbly_bush 4y ago
  > When it comes to banking there are a lot of modern "shortcuts" that make it safe and painless pretty much everywhere in the world. Can you elaborate what shortcuts are you referring to in this context?
Andys 4y ago
I like using it for subscriptions, because it lists them all in one place and gives me a hassle-free way to cancel each of them.
OmahaBoy69 4y ago
>What niche does it support that direct payments don't? For buying stuff online it removes the need to fiddle around with CCs (+ trusting individual websites with CC info) and lets you checkout quickly. It's also great if you get scammed out of your money somehow... Their chargeback system is stupidly easy and is infamous for always siding with the buyer. It sucks when you're on the other side of the transaction, though. Used to run a Minecraft server as a teenager, and they gave me a huge amount of grief between indisputable chargebacks and locking my account once for KYC purposes.

puffoflogic 4y ago

Given that everyone who cared and was willing to leave over the issue did leave, it would have been irrational for PayPal to do anything else.

Dig1t 4y ago
I use PayPal to collect rent, I was waiting until the end of the month to cancel my account to make sure another method would work before cancelling my account. To be honest I kind of forgot I was going to do that, but now this has definitely renewed my determination to delete my PayPal account. What a scummy company.

shiado 4y ago

Is there a good ToS/EULA diff site? It would be nice to see how and when these things change across many services.

asicsp 4y ago
This might help: "Ask HN: Any “Git diff”-like service but for when terms of conditions changes?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21564850 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21564850

humanlity 4y ago

Today they can charge this, tomorrow I can't imagine

tenpies 4y ago
Tomorrow all charges get a referral to the Act Blue shared database with the FBI.

labster 4y ago

Wow, great news! Now everyone who says anything racist will have to put $2500 into the swear jar. I expect racism will disappear overnight, and we will have a plushappy society with institutionalized love for all. Thanks PayPal!

eurasiantiger 4y ago
PayPalBot recognizes your discourse as sarcastic and diminutive, both of which are specified offenses under the PayPal Terms of Service. Your account has been charged a one-time, irrecoverable fee of $2,500.
origin_path 4y ago
- m-p-3 4y ago
  PayPal might be one of the worst company out there, but criticizing them on their contribution to the afro-american community is not one I'd make.
  - origin_path 4y ago
    And if PayPal was funding exclusively the "white European/American male" community, such that organizations that cared equally about black people were not eligible for their cash, do you think that would pass by unremarked? Of course it's not a "contribution", it's racism in which people are being given money because of the color of their skin.
    - m-p-3 4y ago
      That's called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action
      - origin_path 4y ago

jdkee 4y ago

Closed my account after 20 years. Bye bye.

jiveturkey 4y ago

Seems to be overstating the case in some ways, and understating in others. My reading is that this applies to transactions that promote violence, obscenity, etc. Yes it is indeed awful and deserving of ridicule, but it's not a charge against your non-transaction related activity. So in that sense the headline is overstating the case. I'm only finding pitchfork raising junk sources right now, but anyway those say that this applied to seller activity in the last go-round. My reading of https://www.paypal.com/us/legalhub/acceptableuse-full https://www.paypal.com/us/legalhub/acceptableuse-full is that this "now" applies to either side of a transaction. So in that sense, the headline is understating the new problem. That AUP happens to also have a date of 9/21/21 so apparently this has been in effect for over a year. Why isn't that called out?

ilaksh 4y ago

The stuff that concerns me just as much as the policing of opinions is all the list of things requiring pre-approval. I have web applications that my customers pay for with cryptocurrency, sometimes use telemedicine or make an adult purchase. It seems like I am supposed to discuss all of my personal life and business ahead of time with PayPal and then I would still be just kind of hoping for good will.

tenpies 4y ago
The beauty of this (as far as US weaponization of law is concerned) is that yes, you are correct. But because there is functionally no customer service at Paypal, the Legal Department is customer service. So to even talk to Paypal about these things you would have to spend thousands of dollars and several months. And when you make a mistake in a way Paypal doesn't like, you'll be obliterated. Those of us who grew or lived in the third world will recognize the current status of US law under Biden quite clearly: "For my friends, anything. For my enemies? The law!", it's just now extended down to the consumer ToS level.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  > Those of us who grew or lived in the third world will recognize the current status of US law under Biden quite clearly: ... What does Biden have to do with it? Are you implying this wasn't also true under Trump? He pardoned a bunch of his friends on the way out.
  - raincom 4y ago
    Prosecutorial discretion is how one does political favors.
- thatguy0900 4y ago
  I wasn't aware Biden overhauled laws around PayPal money handling recently

Test0129 4y ago

This is neither shocking, nor new. A decade ago I remember a friend who had a small business selling some niche collectors items. One day, he was scammed. The guy reported that the package was never delivered and, without even investigating, Paypal banned my friend's account and awarded the buyer their money back. Paypal has always, and will always be a shit company. Charging people $2,500 for wrongthink is simply asinine. They must be betting BIG on either woke politics being mainstream for the long term, unbreakable bonds with their existing customers, or both. I can't even think of someone around me that uses paypal regularly. I will be interested in reading the technical report on how they plan on implementing this because I'm sure it'll be silicon valley diarrhea. I am currently working out how to pay companies in a similar fashion to Paypal. I'm looking at Privacy.com but something is off about it to me for some reason. Once that is solved I'll get this ape off my back forever. I wonder what happens if I just say "lol, not paying" to them. Would they put me in collections? It seems infeasible to even enforce this and it strikes me that clicking a button doesn't amount of a legal agreement.

willsmith72 4y ago
I guess you're not in Europe. Paypal is huge here, especially in Germany. Has been useful for years here for free instant transactions without currency conversion fees (at least between some euro currencies)
- Test0129 4y ago
  Interesting. I'd imagine here most of the apps people use for that (Cash app, Zelle, etc) are just frontends for Paypal.
  - pie_flavor 4y ago
    Zelle is a direct bank transfer system.
  - acchow 4y ago
    They are not. Cash was built using unlinked refunds over visa to do direct deposit onto visa debit cards. For ACH, it uses normal ACH rails. Zelle…was built by the big banks…

kokizzu2 4y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuHX9s6ek2w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuHX9s6ek2w

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago

Thats why decentralised value exchange is important. Any centralised solution is subject to arbitrary imposed limitations. Imagine if Paypal controlled the air you breath.

smsm42 4y ago

I don't think the language they are citing was ever gone from the TOS. I checked it couple weeks ago and it was there. Essentially if you have a seller account and any funds in PayPal, you agree that they can take $2500 from it for anything they don't like about you, per instance. Doesn't seem to apply to regular transfers or non-seller accounts though. Also, technically they are right saying "misinformation" is not on the list - it isn't, only a dozen of other things among which is "other forms of intolerance", "promotion of hate", "considered obscene", - which is determined by them and you agree in advance each time will cost you $2500 per pop.

phendrenad2 4y ago

This is fake news clickbait. Let's look at what this actually says: This only applies to sellers who have violated the TOS. And you are only agreeing that $2,500 is the likely minimum fine for a TOS violation, and that they can take that from any account you have linked. (Of course, I'm not a lawyer.)

phendrenad2 4y ago
Wow the downvotes. I guess the qanon brigade is here.
- CrazyPyroLinux 4y ago
  The biggest conspiracy theory is that those who disagree with you are conspiracy theorists...
  - phendrenad2 4y ago
    That's a nice trite little saying, but it doesn't fit reality. I mean it's not like an angry group of right-wing people reply to every single tweet by democratic politicians, right? Why do you think HN is above that kind of thing? And a story that claims that PayPal is out to hamper free speech is exactly the kind of lightning rod that would attract such people.
    - CrazyPyroLinux 4y ago
      Trite? You're the one who brought up BlueAnon. (And if you're going to virtue-signal "HN is above that kind of thing," I'll remind you that whining about downvotes is against the guidelines) There seems to me to be plenty of room for interpretation (and potential for foul play) in the TOS. Maybe that's an exaggeration, but to call it a "fake news clickbait" is disingenuous.
      - phendrenad2 4y ago
        If there's room for interpretation, and you say "it absolutely means this very clickbaity interpretation" then yes, you are doing a clickbait, my friend.

midislack 4y ago

But the guy said it was a mistake, isn't this just making him a liar now?

psyfi 4y ago

This is what we should expect if CDBC became widespread

polski-g 4y ago
The First Amendment would prevent a CDBC from closing your account for your online speech. A CDBC would be a huge improvement over PayPal.
- freedude 4y ago
  A CDBC tracks every transaction and creates a system rife for abuse by tyrants at large organizations. They say that reasonable people have nothing to be concerned about. Ok, Just define "reasonable" by who's standards on which subject.
- realce 4y ago
  Yeah just like how the 5th amendment prevents your funds from being stolen by law enforcement for baseless suspicion. Those amendments are iron-clad, water-tight, and applied evenly to all citizens!
  - treeman79 4y ago
    Vote for constitutional judges then. Like Clarence Thomas. He doesn’t give a flying $&! what people wants. He votes what the constitution says.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      You can't vote directly for supreme court justice. At best you have to temper guessing when the next one is gonna croak and deciding whether you want to vote for the candidate who will nominate/confirm the justice you want, or vote for the candidate that better fits your position in the event none of them croak.
      - treeman79 4y ago

abracadabra_ 4y ago

I don't agree with PayPal's decision here but I'm failing to see how it's as broad as people seem to be making it. The TOS specifically say that you may not use PayPal for promotion of hate etc. So you might not be able to buy a Nazi flag via PayPal but there's nothing there, for example, to stop you posting an image of a Nazi flag on Twitter.

throwaway22032 4y ago

How exactly do conditions like this work in practice? I can go ahead and write a ToS or even a contract that says "if you don't give me a blue M&M on Saturday 29 October 2022, you owe me $1M". I can get a client to sign it, perhaps it's part of my conditions as a freelancer. I can't realistically see any court enforcing that. As far as I can tell PayPal can only get away with this nonsense because they hold your money anyway. It's exactly the sort of reason people are fighting against cashless/custodial financial systems.

dsfyu404ed 4y ago
>How exactly do conditions like this work in practice? They take the money and bet on not enough people trying to sue and the terms being ironclad enough if they do that they get away with it in general even if they have to pay out a few times.
kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
> As far as I can tell PayPal can only get away with this nonsense because they hold your money anyway. And they're not subject to banking regulations in the US. If they were a bank they wouldn't be able to pull this sort of BS.
treeman79 4y ago
You gave me a bunch of money. There is an understanding (tos) that it’s now my money. I may or may not let you have it back depending on my whims. Since you “gave” me the money, then I can do whatever I want with it. Oh and I can take whatever money out of your bank account it want. Because I want it
gahikr 4y ago
I've wondered how far these TOS via clicks can go and what would actually stand up in court. I'm also surprised an activist hasn't attached a TOS to sending payments such as "By accepting my money you agree to pay me $1 Million dollars for any time I spend more that 5 minutes with customer service without my dispute being settled." I seem to remember a case where someone altered the fine print agreement on a credit card application and the credit card company lost the case with the consumer, but I forget the details.

jpkoning 4y ago

The Grit Daily article cited in the linked-to tweet is fake news. It alleges that PayPal's proposed misinformation clause and associated $2500 penalty, which was cancelled by PayPal earlier this month, has been quietly "added back into the terms of service with equally ambiguous language." This can be proven wrong with a quick check of PayPal's acceptable use policy in the WayBack Machine. The $2500 fine that the article alleges has been added back after "criticism on social media died down" has been there since 2021. [https://web.archive.org/web/20211013092233/https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/acceptableuse-full?locale.x=en_US https://web.archive.org/web/20211013092233/https://www.paypa...] As for article's allegation that a prohibition on intolerance has just been added this October, that clause been there since 2018. [https://web.archive.org/web/20181108164503/https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/acceptableuse-full?locale.x=en_US https://web.archive.org/web/20181108164503/https://www.paypa...]. So there is no justification to the article's allegation that the clauses have been quietly added back to PayPal acceptable use policy. Furthermore, in building its argument that the misinformation clause was sneakily "added back into the terms of service," the article erroneously makes the assumption that a prohibition on intolerance equates to a prohibition on misinformation. This doesn't follow. I'm not trying to support PayPal's acceptable use policy. But if you're going to attack it, at least use facts.

tyen_ 4y ago
Oh, I guess there's no problem since it has been in there for a year. Thanks for clearing that up!

hlesesne 4y ago

I checked the internet archive (wayback machine) and don't see that the AUP has changed significantly in recent months. While I continue to disagree with PayPal's stance and ambiguous language, the article led me to believe that they'd snuck it back in. I don't see anything mentioning "mis-information" in the AUP, but there are still plenty of completely subjective language in the document. It seems to be this garbage has been the same the whole time.

slenk 4y ago

Paypal shut down my business account without any explanation to why after I received one donation from YouTube streaming. Fuck Paypal hard.

miohtama 4y ago
Likely somebody made a payment with a stolen credit card.
- ratsmack 4y ago
  And why would that be the problem of the receiving end of the transaction?
  - grepfru_it 4y ago
    Money laundering
    - hayd 4y ago
      But this could happen to any business, and surely does. Completely turning off a business because it receives one fraudulent payment is not appropriate. Indeed, this hasn't been my experience with other billing platforms. Of course, we're taking the posters claim that this is what happened at face value...
      - judge2020 4y ago
        If it's your first payment, you're pretty much done for. One of their targets is any operation where an entire business/yt account/paypal account is made to launder a single transaction and then left to rot.

Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago

Paypal is on a mission to destroy its market value.

freedude 4y ago

When a business decides it must live your life for you to "protect" itself there are significant problems. Little brother is watching you...

bandrami 4y ago

Don't the ToS already basically say they can just take your money any time they want for no reason at all?

counttheforks 4y ago
That's the money you were already giving them to hold on to. They have now decided that you also agree to pay them even more money when they decide they don't like what you're doing. The clause says they may deduct it from any of your PayPal accounts, but if you haven't given them that much money to hold on to, you still owe them, and presumably they will come after you.

afrcnc 4y ago

The EU would like a word...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

BryantD 4y ago

I’m very wary of this change but it’s also very hard to discuss it rationally when people exaggerate it. Quoting the new User Agreement: “If you are a seller and receive funds for transactions that violate the Acceptable Use Policy, then … you will be liable to PayPal for the amount of PayPal’s damages caused by your violation of the Acceptable Use Policy. You acknowledge and agree that $2,500 U.S. dollars per violation … is presently a reasonable minimum estimate of PayPal’s actual damages.” I don’t think I do agree with that estimate. On the other hand, it’s a complete lie that PayPal said they can withdraw money from your bank account for saying something they don’t like. This is about sellers and transactions that violate the (somewhat vague) AUP. I think in the end I’ll choose not to engage in extended dialogue with people who misrepresent facts. This kind of crap just strengthens the divide in the US.

CrazyPyroLinux 4y ago
> I’ll choose not to [...] dialogue > just strengthens the divide Non sequitur, but ok. There seems to me to be plenty of room for interpretation (and potential for foul play) in the TOS. Maybe that's an exaggeration, but to call it a "complete lie" is itself to misrepresent facts.
- BryantD 4y ago
  The linked tweet and article claim that PayPal can pull money out of your bank account. There's no way to interpret the ToS like that; it clearly says this possibility only applies to your PayPal account and any money in there.

Yorch 4y ago

I don't think any private company can give a fine aside from court. Not in my country. Only the goverment can write laws.

faeriechangling 4y ago

PayPal doesn’t have a monopoly anymore so this just seems bizarre. Visa, Google, Apple, etc run similar services on a massive scale. Then there’s of course crypto. For how rarely they are likely to actually enforce this, it just seems like a rather stupid hill to die on. Not just the initial decision but the attempt to try and sneak the terms back in.

LightHugger 4y ago
Paypal is well known for randomly stealing money from user accounts and has been known for this for over a decade. Their reputation is already rock bottom to anyone who would know about this latest debacle, and they make massive amounts of money for free by doing this. There is no reason at all for them to stop, unfortunately.
- faeriechangling 4y ago
  They are but the optics here are especially jarring. First the political angle which is bad when you’re trying to sell to the entire population, and now the just very obviously cruel move to small business during economic hardship. It’s tempting people who shrugged their shoulders and used PayPal because they were a monopoly to re-evaluate if they should click PayPal in a checkout with Visa Checkout for instance.

shever73 4y ago

PayPal account closed after 21 years, Amazon account closed after 24.

ewzimm 4y ago

The first person who gets charged this fine could make a lot of money from publicity if they're smart about it. It's nice that this has been so widely circulated.

notch656a 4y ago
The first person they fine will be someone so undesirable that no one will like them or care to defend them. It's the same way the government commonly builds precedent into questionable laws -- start out for years to decades persecuting only extremely unlikeable persons who no one wants to defend, then after years of precedent and slowly boiling the frog unleash it on the greater populace.
- ewzimm 4y ago
  This might be true, but I wonder if there's really anyone so unlikable that they couldn't find an audience in the long tail. Extremism unfortunately seems to be able to find a way despite deplatforming. See examples like Nick Fuentes who recently attracted some of the most prominent politicians to his conference.

gadders 4y ago

I mostly used PayPal so I didn't have to get up off the sofa when ordering stuff on my phone to find my credit card. Given the threat of fines for wrong-think, that's not a compelling enough use case.

gadders 4y ago
Just tried to do it and apparently I have a mysterious "pending transaction" that is stopping me closing my account. How convenient.

hayd 4y ago

Feels like only a month ago when Paypal were claiming that this change was an innocent mistake and not to read anything into it being leaked. ...shocked picacho face...

gnicholas 4y ago

It looks like these TOS are slightly narrower than before — they removed the word "depict" from the clause about violence/discrimination/etc. As originally drafted it would have included using PayPal to sell a DVD of a movie that depicts violence. The new TOS are still very broad, but they don't include these ridiculous cases, which obviously should never have been included. Perhaps when they said "oops, it was a mistake" they meant that the inclusion of a couple words like "depict" was a mistake, but the general thrust was exactly what they wanted.

DLA 4y ago

Yet more big tech over reach. Screw PayPal. Just killed my account. They are dead to me.