141–150 of 182 posts
There's a reason why the hold explanations are vague but it has nothing to do with questionable intentions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'd much rather pay them through PayPal (where I can even pay from a bank account) than to give my CC numbers to some micro operation. Really? I certainly wouldn't. I have recourse with American Express. They have far better fraud detection than Paypal, in large part because they know my spending habits far better than Paypal does. On the single instance I've dealt AMEX's fraud detection, they called me before they…
You are assuming that "better fraud detection" means "fraud detection that isn't triggered". Credit card companies aren't as concerned about as fraud because they don't lose money, the merchant loses money. It costs them little to be lax. Paypal loses their own money when they don't detect fraud. They can't afford to be lax.
It means "fraud detection that catches actual fraud and doesn't bother me otherwise.
> Credit card companies aren't as concerned about as fraud because they don't lose money, the merchant loses money.
Wrong. The merchant is indemnified against fraud and the CC company takes the loss if the merchant can show that they followed the guidelines in the merchant agreement (essentially: check that the card is signed and the signature on the receipt matches the signature on the card).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They probably also make a fortune on the interest accrued. I wonder if they defer to freezing accounts so easily is because they realize that it's easy money.
Firstly, no. Secondly, most PayPal purchases happen through credit cards. Credit card companies hold onto the payments for up to 60 days, meaning PayPal is holding onto absolutely nothing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consumers can reverse credit card payments up to six months out.
That's a product insurance system though isn't it, it's not clearing or failing to pay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They probably also make a fortune on the interest accrued. I wonder if they defer to freezing accounts so easily is because they realize that it's easy money.
Firstly, no. Secondly, most PayPal purchases happen through credit cards. Credit card companies hold onto the payments for up to 60 days, meaning PayPal is holding onto absolutely nothing.
PayPal would absolutely tell the customer that "we can't do anything the CC company is holding the funds". They don't appear to be doing that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't realize that...in that case, I volunteer to let him use my PayPal account!
Enjoy the money laundering investigation, and say good bye to ever leaving your country again.
In the US, the government doesn't even have to opportunity to prevent you from leaving the country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'd much rather pay them through PayPal (where I can even pay from a bank account) than to give my CC numbers to some micro operation. Really? I certainly wouldn't. I have recourse with American Express. They have far better fraud detection than Paypal, in large part because they know my spending habits far better than Paypal does. On the single instance I've dealt AMEX's fraud detection, they called me before they…
>Really? I certainly wouldn't. I have recourse with American Express. When I pay with Paypal I have recourse with both Paypal AND my credit card. It doesn't remove that right. >Paypal, on the other hand, flagged a transaction as potentially fraudulent simply because I had the purchase shipped to my workplace Why is the fact that it's a well known Bay Area address of any significance at all? Paypal demands that shippe…
Which do you think seems more fraudulent? This address:
1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy, Mountain View, CA 94043
Or this one?
Hospital Road, P.M.B. 2155 Kaduna, Nigeria
Which address do you think is more likely to be used for fraud?
> Paypal demands that shipped items only go to the address on record for the account. That seems pretty logical and of obvious value.
An obvious negative value, sure. I've shipped to at least 9 different addresses on Amazon. Sometimes I'm not buying things for myself. Sometimes I'm not at home and want it to get shipped to me at a hotel. Oddly, Amazon has no problem with this (maybe because they're indemnified against fraud losses by the CC company, as I noted elsewhere). But try to ship something anywhere but your recorded home address with Paypal and you have to jump through a ridiculous number of hoops. It's not logical at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a product insurance system though isn't it, it's not clearing or failing to pay.
If a transaction can be reversed, it hasn't cleared.
IMO if the money is available for you to spend then it has "cleared". Money that has cleared may be recouped, eg when you sell something fraudulently and get nabbed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a transaction can be reversed, it hasn't cleared.
What I'm saying is that my impression is that the transaction is not reversed but that a subsequent insurance claim is made. IMO if the money is available for you to spend then it has "cleared". Money that has cleared may be recouped, eg when you sell something fraudulently and get nabbed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Really? I certainly wouldn't. I have recourse with American Express. When I pay with Paypal I have recourse with both Paypal AND my credit card. It doesn't remove that right. >Paypal, on the other hand, flagged a transaction as potentially fraudulent simply because I had the purchase shipped to my workplace Why is the fact that it's a well known Bay Area address of any significance at all? Paypal demands that shippe…
> Why is the fact that it's a well known Bay Area address of any significance at all? Which do you think seems more fraudulent? This address: 1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy, Mountain View, CA 94043 Or this one? Hospital Road, P.M.B. 2155 Kaduna, Nigeria Which address do you think is more likely to be used for fraud? > Paypal demands that shipped items only go to the address on record for the account. That seems pretty logica…