Live data from Hacker News

PayPal penalised for 'deceptive' practices

bbc.com

51–60 of 225 posts

Re: PayPal penalised for 'deceptive' practices

#51
post #11

I made use of PayPal Credit the other day to defer payment of an item for 14 days. Is this the same thing or something different? Having looked at my transaction history, I don't seem to have been charged anything for the service. Where might I check to be sure?

The main issue is that "PayPal Credit" and "PayPal Balance" are nearly indiscernible concepts to the end user, and could cause you to sign up for the "credit" when you really just meant to use your "credits."

Re: PayPal penalised for 'deceptive' practices

#52
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does PayPal even allow selling things like WoW accounts? Otherwise you don't really have a right to complain.

PayPal isn't a merchant platform -- it's a payment service so yes you can accept personal payments, it might not be covered by seller protection if that's what you mean. That's no excuse for terrible security policies though. I mean literally every buyer had a stolen account!

How were you determining the accounts were stolen?

Also, as much as we would love to say companies are responsible for the security of our accounts, losing credentials is also a user issue.

Re: PayPal penalised for 'deceptive' practices

#53
When I was much younger I was doing freelance work for some guy I was referred. He said he was using his girlfriends account because he doesn't use Paypal himself and this was a one off job. I thought, "yeah, that's fine, cool."

Anyway, a while later he disputes that I didn't do the work for him (I did, with evidence) and Paypal take the money back, freeze both mine and his and that's that. They won't re-open my account because it's been associated with a fraudulent account.

They tell me that this guy had been using someone else's account and that I should go to the police. The police say that the guy doesn't live at the registered address, never has. And that was the end of it. Even though Paypal knew it wasn't my fault they wouldn't unfreeze my account.

That was about 8 years ago and it's only recently I've setup a new account to accept donations for my project. And I did that begrudgingly...

I NEVER use Paypal for accepting payments online, it's always Stripe.

Re: PayPal penalised for 'deceptive' practices

#54
post #4

About time, but $25M is nothing for them. Nowadays we have all our clients using Stripe for their CC processing, but back in the day, our clients could use anyone they want. One poor soul choose to use PayPal against our insisting he not. Three days before he had to give the security deposit to the convention center where his organization was hosting their conference, PayPal froze the account. I can't express the str…

I have a friend who's small business was killed by Paypal. He had a board game shop (about five employees), but most of his business was online. He used Paypal as his bank account (dumb idea, I know.) During a christmas rush Paypal suddenly froze the account. I don't remember the exact reasons they gave, but it was something like he had too much money or was receiving money too fast.

Re: PayPal penalised for 'deceptive' practices

#55
post #18
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I gather that PayPal's secret to success is strong anti-fraud measures (and not caring about false positives), and one of them is freezing accounts that get a flood of money all at once. That also is a pattern you see in events and charities set up for a new disaster.

PayPal does not consider conferences a "false positive". Small events often fail: the speakers cancel, the venue falls through, not enough people buy tickets to cover costs... if you are using incoming ticket money today for things, you are essentially taking investments, not payments. PayPal's response to this is to hold most of the money until one day after the conference, as otherwise, when your conference fails,…

> This actually leads to PayPal being very user-focussed

For s/user/buyer/: I'll add the notable exception that is the root of this complaint, virtually everything about the Buy It Now business. There are the parts of the complaint, and then there's the fact that they've been badgering desktop users for long years to sign up for their credit service by making the Paypal user experience suck every single time you interact with them. It's almost amazing to me that it was actually worse for anyone who ever clicked "Yes" on one of those infernal dialogues.

I have rarely found a company's user experience so systemically hateful as Paypal. To the point where, if there is virtually any other option for payment, I'll take it.

Re: PayPal penalised for 'deceptive' practices

#56
It's ridiculous that Paypal is literally a bank at this point, yet somehow subject to none of the same regulations and consumer (or merchant) protections as one.

> PayPal is accused of making the service the default option for new sign-ups without making clear that it was doing so.

Different but related: No matter how many times I tell them that I want to pay with my real credit card instead of "direct bank transfer", it never persists. I must have set this as the default in my settings a hundred times. No luck.

Re: PayPal penalised for 'deceptive' practices

#57
post #37
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PayPal does not consider conferences a "false positive". Small events often fail: the speakers cancel, the venue falls through, not enough people buy tickets to cover costs... if you are using incoming ticket money today for things, you are essentially taking investments, not payments. PayPal's response to this is to hold most of the money until one day after the conference, as otherwise, when your conference fails,…

How is it that these people can jump to another provider and not end up with the same issues then?

Most likely, the other providers have not achieved the same level of "success" that Paypal have, and therefore haven't reached steady state in terms of risk losses. Or, they have painted themselves in a corner by advertising that they are much more business-friendly than PayPal, and are taking losses on the chin in the hopes of growing/inventing their way out of the problem.

Re: PayPal penalised for 'deceptive' practices

#58
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sell a software production online. The purchase page has a simple credit card payment form, and off the side is a small "PayPal" button an an alternative payment method. Despite the fact that the PayPal button is tiny compared to the credit card form, a full 2/3 of customers use PayPal to complete the purchase. That's why people use PayPal, because a large percentage of customers prefer it over credit card payments…

For me, it's not that I prefer PayPal, it's that I don't want to give my credit card details to a business if I'm not sure they can keep it reasonably secure. And the fewer places I have my card the better. You might get the same results with Amazon Payments, unless you have an international audience.

You can use a virtual credit card number for such instances

Re: PayPal penalised for 'deceptive' practices

#59
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always compare with my normal bank when I'm forced to use paypal and so far they have always been slightly higher than the bank. I live in Sweden though.

My wife uses Nordea and they go out on a limb for her every time she needs something (and she lives in the US with me, so hardly can go into the bank for things).

Nordea and Handelsbanken is probably the best big banks when it comes to service.
Post reply on HN