> Hardly a realistic risk there. What? No it's not. Here's an example of a payment processor that got sued for being the payment processor used by a debt set

> Hardly a realistic risk there. What? No it's not. Here's an example of a payment processor that got sued for being the payment processor used by a debt settlement firm that merely "overcharged consumers, took untimely fees, misrepresented the value of its services, and failed to make critical disclosures about consumer harms."[0] > Payment processors are really hard to sue unless they are directly involved in fraud. All of that is merely a question of the scale of the activity and how badly the government wants to stop it. Same reason cryptocurrency escaped taxing/reporting requirements for many years -- the scale and the ire of the government just wasn't there yet. Relevant to this discussion, the payment processor in question is associated with a company that makes no bones about providing services for people engaged in work that is illegal in many jurisdictions! If you don't think that would eventually land both companies in the government's crosshairs, I don't know what to tell you. Take "fair" out of the equation, if you're a business owner it's not about "fair", it's about saving your ass. It's not a moral judgement for a company to voluntarily disassociate themselves from another company engaged in illegal behavior. > Which is why person to person payment processors like Venmo can operate. Venmo's TOS has named restrictions on what customers can do (and "at our discretion" clauses), and they absolutely will ban users for violating them if it either Venmo can prove it or if they government starts threatening them over it. 0: https://www.mass.gov/news/ags-office-reaches-settlement-with-payment-processing-company-over-claims-of-unlawful-fee-practices https://www.mass.gov/news/ags-office-reaches-settlement-with...