Is pay-pal entering the role of speech police ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
So MolokaiRider MolokaiRider forgive me I'm at work but quick question so I don't reread the whole agreement again. Is it there or only in the drop down menu?
 
David Mary said:
So MolokaiRider MolokaiRider forgive me I'm at work but quick question so I don't reread the whole agreement again. Is it there or only in the drop down menu?
Click to expand...
It's hard for me personally to really understand as it's sorta vague. But the way I'm interpreting it, is that if they somehow deem something that violates their AUP they can seize your funds.
 
I never realized I gave them permission to yank money from my checking account for fines. I suppose they have all the info they need though. $2500 is right at that mark where a lawyer probably costs more than that to sue them, so...
 
XJ-linux said:
I never realized I gave them permission to yank money from my checking account for fines. I suppose they have all the info they need though. $2500 is right at that mark where a lawyer probably costs more than that to sue them, so...
Click to expand...
Plenty of lawsuits have been filled over less. PP must have realized that pretty quickly given their response.
 
The screen shots I posted above are from today. The $2500.00 per violation looks like it's still in effect.
 
I think big money needed to sell some paypal holdings and created a reason for the stock price drop. If there wasn't a narrative people would ask more questions about who what when where and why.

Retail investors dont have the power to move a stocks market cap the way PayPal has moved this week.

BIG MONEY DOES.

what do I know though?
 
XJ-linux said:
I never realized I gave them permission to yank money from my checking account for fines. I suppose they have all the info they need though. $2500 is right at that mark where a lawyer probably costs more than that to sue them, so...
Click to expand...
You don't have to link a checking account. I didn't.
 
I once sold a "Damascus Fighter", listed as such in the notes. The transaction was stopped by PayPal. For less than fifteen minutes.
 
I rememberd that i had a PP account that i haven't used in six years.
Just tried to delete it and this is the message i get:

Screenshot_20221012-054210_Samsung Internet.jpg

Very cryptic and when i click on the "customer service" link, it'll just redirect me to the FAQs.

No idea what needs to be resolved but this looks like they're trying to make it complicated to delete your account.
 
MolokaiRider MolokaiRider the way that is worded is pretty funny. They gain agreement that $2500 per violation is a reasonable estimate of the damages PayPal suffers. Then claims the right to deduct such damages from accounts controlled by individuals who commit violations. The implication is that the violation itself has to actually cause and incur damages, but they have craftily stated that damages are difficult to calculate, thereby leaving it open to interpretation. Do they claim the right to actually fine every violator $2500? It's not explicit. It might be a scare tactic to imply that you could be fined with or without having actually caused PayPal damages, without actually saying it directly. And if they try, this wording seems to allow remedy through challenging them to prove any actual damages occurred in the specific case, rather than tacitly consenting to their outright presumption of them.
 
Actually, on second thought, it is not a fine, period. They say they'll deduct damages only, the agreement to their estimate is meaningless. If they suffered non-zero damages as the result of a specific violation, or alleged violation of their user agreement, they can prove both the nature of the violation, and the existence of damages through a direct cause and effect based on hard facts with an electronic paper trail. If they don't have that, then I believe one can both "agree" their estimate is reasonable, and stand on their right to have PayPal prove that damages actually took place.
 
David Mary said:
Actually, on second thought, it is not a fine, period. They say they'll deduct damages only, the agreement to their estimate is meaningless. If they suffered non-zero damages as the result of a specific violation, or alleged violation of their user agreement, they can prove both the nature of the violation, and the existence of damages through a direct cause and effect based on hard facts with an electronic paper trail. If they don't have that, then I believe one can both "agree" their estimate is reasonable, and stand on their right to have PayPal prove that damages actually took place.
Click to expand...
Yes.

Or one could just stop doing business with PayPal.
 
bonky said:
Yes.

Or one could just stop doing business with PayPal.
Click to expand...

Yes. I suppose one planning to engage in transactions that violate the PayPal user agreement would be wise to stop doing business with PayPal, and use a service that allows such transactions instead.
 
The fact checkers have now claimed this entire event didn't happen. When professional online fact checking services lie & rewrite their own facts to make an event never happened is a bigger crime than the original incident.

Fuk this gay earth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top