7 ms·

Wait, if they ban you and you have a balance at the time, they just keep your money? That can't possibly be legal.

slenk 4y ago
Yup. They closed my account with money in it, with no explanation why my account has been closed and absolutely zero recourse.
- javajosh 4y ago
  I'd be curious to know what happens if you sue them in small claims court. Jurisdiction may be an issue, but if they stole from you while you were home, then I'd argue your hometown is the proper jurisdiction. Note: IANAL. I'd guess that they'd just not show up, you'd get a judgement, and then just have to figure out how to get it paid. Or maybe they will show up, hire a local lawyer to represent them and point out the fine print in the ToS that forbids holding them accountable for any reason in any venue. And with any luck, the judge will laugh at them and give you treble damages.
  - slenk 4y ago
    I saw a post on here recently talking about how they got Paypal into court. I'll have to try and find it again. Problem is, it's not worth whatever court costs I would probably incur. Granted, there isn't a lawyer involved in small claims, but could they judge order me pay their lawyer fees if I lose?
    - panta 4y ago
      Maybe we could create a sort of small mutual insurance fund to pay legal expenses in such cases.
      - slenk 4y ago
        I am not smart enough to know if that is already a thing or not...
    - Eisenstein 4y ago
      You might want to check if lawyers are even allowed in small claims. If they aren't they would have to sent a company representative, and there would be no 'lawyer fees'.
      - slenk 4y ago
        Well in Michigan (where I am located) they are not allowed. I am pretty pessimistic and just assume there are fees I don't know about
    - chongli 4y ago
      Depends on the laws in your jurisdiction. I think in a lot of cases, small claims courts put very low caps on legal fees that can be claimed. The defendant might only be able to claim a few hundred dollars at most.
  - humanistbot 4y ago
    The ToS has a forced arbitration clause, so a judge would never get to the merits of the case. Any disputes must be resolved through an arbitrator that Paypal gets to pick. Judges love cases with forced arbitration, because they can just issue a summary dismissal and go to lunch early.
    - javajosh 4y ago
      Forced arbitration clauses should be illegal just as indentured servitude should be illegal, and for similar reasons.
  - ensignavenger 4y ago
    They may have an arbitration clause, but even then,you would have a good chance of getting your money back if you took them to arbitration.
- toss1 4y ago
  Yup, thx for the reminder. I had a small-ish balance sitting there and your reminder just provoked me to login, check it, and transfer it out. Can't wait for that new FedNow Service -- it should be coming soon! [0] [0] https://www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/fednow_about.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/fednow_about.h...
gambiting 4y ago
It is because it's in their T&C's. And they fought tooth and nail for years to avoid being classified as a bank so the normal bank regulations and customer protections don't apply to them.
- rchaud 4y ago
  Watch them magically reverse these policies once FedNow arrives and they actually have some competition.
- robin_reala 4y ago
  They are a bank in the EU, couldn’t get around that one.
- lazide 4y ago
  Banks can do this too if you hit the right set of circumstances/red flags.
ansible 4y ago
It is typical for large corporations to have a bunch of legal fine print. This effectively allows them to do just about anything, as long as they have a "reason". They nominally don't do just anything (like take your money), because they want people to use their service, and if they cheated everyone all the time, you'd hope that people would catch on and stop using their service. Having said all that, dealing with illegal transactions, fraud and scammers is tough. The corporations will, honestly, make mistakes, and having enough customer service to deal with it all properly is expensive. Hence automated bans. Often there is no recourse except moving towards a lawsuit, which may be unreasonably expensive for most cases, as compared to the money that has been lost.
- praptak 4y ago
  While I agree that dealing with fraud is tough, what they are doing is pushing this risk onto their customers.

Yup. They closed my account with money in it, with no explanation why my account has been closed and absolutely zero recourse.

javajosh 4y ago
I'd be curious to know what happens if you sue them in small claims court. Jurisdiction may be an issue, but if they stole from you while you were home, then I'd argue your hometown is the proper jurisdiction. Note: IANAL. I'd guess that they'd just not show up, you'd get a judgement, and then just have to figure out how to get it paid. Or maybe they will show up, hire a local lawyer to represent them and point out the fine print in the ToS that forbids holding them accountable for any reason in any venue. And with any luck, the judge will laugh at them and give you treble damages.
- slenk 4y ago
  I saw a post on here recently talking about how they got Paypal into court. I'll have to try and find it again. Problem is, it's not worth whatever court costs I would probably incur. Granted, there isn't a lawyer involved in small claims, but could they judge order me pay their lawyer fees if I lose?
  - panta 4y ago
    Maybe we could create a sort of small mutual insurance fund to pay legal expenses in such cases.
    - slenk 4y ago
      I am not smart enough to know if that is already a thing or not...
  - Eisenstein 4y ago
    You might want to check if lawyers are even allowed in small claims. If they aren't they would have to sent a company representative, and there would be no 'lawyer fees'.
    - slenk 4y ago
      Well in Michigan (where I am located) they are not allowed. I am pretty pessimistic and just assume there are fees I don't know about
  - chongli 4y ago
    Depends on the laws in your jurisdiction. I think in a lot of cases, small claims courts put very low caps on legal fees that can be claimed. The defendant might only be able to claim a few hundred dollars at most.
- humanistbot 4y ago
  The ToS has a forced arbitration clause, so a judge would never get to the merits of the case. Any disputes must be resolved through an arbitrator that Paypal gets to pick. Judges love cases with forced arbitration, because they can just issue a summary dismissal and go to lunch early.
  - javajosh 4y ago
    Forced arbitration clauses should be illegal just as indentured servitude should be illegal, and for similar reasons.
- ensignavenger 4y ago
  They may have an arbitration clause, but even then,you would have a good chance of getting your money back if you took them to arbitration.
toss1 4y ago
Yup, thx for the reminder. I had a small-ish balance sitting there and your reminder just provoked me to login, check it, and transfer it out. Can't wait for that new FedNow Service -- it should be coming soon! [0] [0] https://www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/fednow_about.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/fednow_about.h...

gambiting 4y ago

It is because it's in their T&C's. And they fought tooth and nail for years to avoid being classified as a bank so the normal bank regulations and customer protections don't apply to them.

rchaud 4y ago
Watch them magically reverse these policies once FedNow arrives and they actually have some competition.
robin_reala 4y ago
They are a bank in the EU, couldn’t get around that one.
lazide 4y ago
Banks can do this too if you hit the right set of circumstances/red flags.

ansible 4y ago

It is typical for large corporations to have a bunch of legal fine print. This effectively allows them to do just about anything, as long as they have a "reason". They nominally don't do just anything (like take your money), because they want people to use their service, and if they cheated everyone all the time, you'd hope that people would catch on and stop using their service. Having said all that, dealing with illegal transactions, fraud and scammers is tough. The corporations will, honestly, make mistakes, and having enough customer service to deal with it all properly is expensive. Hence automated bans. Often there is no recourse except moving towards a lawsuit, which may be unreasonably expensive for most cases, as compared to the money that has been lost.

praptak 4y ago
While I agree that dealing with fraud is tough, what they are doing is pushing this risk onto their customers.