101–110 of 158 posts
“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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)
Interesting. I'd imagine here most of the apps people use for that (Cash app, Zelle, etc) are just frontends for Paypal.
Zelle…was built by the big banks…
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!
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting. I'd imagine here most of the apps people use for that (Cash app, Zelle, etc) are just frontends for Paypal.
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…
That sorta sounds like violating visa tos?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And why would that be the problem of the receiving end of the transaction?
Money laundering
Of course, we're taking the posters claim that this is what happened at face value...