I refused to disclose my annual income to PAYPAL and they froze my funds !

I hope this response doesn't go overlooked, because the same advice has helped me in the past.

Read this page:

consumerist.com...

Find each relevant e-mail address ([email protected], [email protected], [email protected], account-review, etc etc) and send a detailed, but to the point account of what has happened. Basically a mass e-mail, add a few of the CEOs and executive escalations/customer service members too. The list is a bit old, but if you google around you will probably find current ones. Also, send your story to consumerist.com, they love stories about paypal screwing people, and if they publish your story you can always stick that in an e-mail to paypal so that they know that it's not just being brushed under the rug. Do they care? Probably not, but it does turn up the heat a little bit. Good luck!

PAYPAL IS A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE.. PERIOD!

I absolutely refuse to use e-bay or paypal for anything. If I cannot
get it on Amazon or somewhere else, I will do without. I have had
nothing but problems with "paythief". They should be put out of
business.

reply to post by TinkerHaus

The potential Auctioneer clicking the check box that says "I have read and consent to PayPal's Terms of Service" satisfies this requirement.

The contract was given a counter offer. You can ignore this all you want, and make claims that "I have read and consent to Paypals terms of service", but this does not negate the clear and obvious counter offer the O.P. made. If Paypal has indeed frozen this account for the reason you are claiming, and had you for an attorney, they'd be royally screwed in court. A contract is a contract. If Paypal did not agree to the terms and conditions the O.P. made, they should not have activated his account.

The buyer (The OP) received a popular platform with which to post and sell items for profit. The seller (eBay) received fees to list the option, and additional fees to transfer payment from the Auctioneer to the Auction Winner.

The O.P. has not received his consideration in this contract, so what is your point here?

This is a hilarious stretch. No, the OP accepted PayPals terms of use, again by clicking the box that says "I have read and consent to PayPal's Terms of Service" satisfies this requirement.

No he didn't. He made a very clear and visible counter offer, of which any jury member can read. You could, as Paypal's defense attorney attempt to let the jury in on your little joke, but I would just calmly remind the jury that they are to make a determination based on law, not jokes. The law of contracts is clear. The O.P. made a counter offer, and any marking he did of agreeing to terms and service came with that counter offer. Paypal had opportunity to reject the offer. They declined and accepted the O.P.'s counter offer. That became a part of the terms and service at that point.

The OP violated Good Faith when he gave false information after accepting the Terms of Service.

You continue to dishonestly represent the facts. This too would be pointed out to a jury. That the defense cannot even be honest in a court - here being the court of public opinion - and if your claims had any validity then why do you keep distorting the truth? Particularly, distorting the truth in order to frame the O.P. as fraudulent.

If you're trying to make this a legal issue, you don't have a leg to stand on. I assure you eBay didn't become the giant it is by having a legal policy that could be destroyed with five minutes of research by an amateur virtual attorney.

Uh-huh. Is this why PayPal settled with both Fernando and Zepeda who sued them for fraud and breach of contract?

The parties in Fernando v. PayPal and Zepeda v. PayPal are currently in the process of finalizing a written settlement agreement and exhibits, including proposed notice to the settlement class. A hearing on preliminary approval is set for June 12, 2012, with the motion for preliminary approval to be filed by May 8, 2012.

Of course, in settling this allowed your precious little "giant" to continue its dubious practices:

While terms of the settlement are as yet undisclosed, the litigation has not stopped PayPal from expanding its holds policy. PayPal sent an email last week sharing its plans to update its "Funds Availability program" to add additional circumstances in which it could hold seller funds, including "Sellers who sell an item that has a sales price that is significantly higher than the average sales price of items previously sold by that seller."

However, your arrogant belief that a "giant" cannot be beaten misses the entire point of David and Goliath, and there are plenty of David's out there with slingshot in hand.

I'm not sure why someone wants to go to such lengths to argue this FACT, but again seven years of experience with eBay and the only problems I have had have been with buyers, and in every single case eBay/PayPal has done more than I ever expected to rectify the situation.

It is understandable why people who have bad experiences with PayPal would go to such lengths, not so understandable why a happy customer of PayPal's would go to such lengths to defend them.

reply to post by SkullAndBeats


Well, just my advice to you Mr new person, don't make posts like that, make constructive posts in line with the thread otherwise you get a nice shiny off topic sticker slapped on you.

Welcome to ATS.

I wouldn't blame PayPal so much as I would blame your countrys current passing of oppressive 'anti-terrorism' laws. Like any sensible business, I'm sure PayPal doesn't have any qualms about taking your money in sweaty fistfuls if need be.

On another note, it probably does look fishy to open an account and immediately receive funds over a certain amount, but I would hope that amount would be larger than it was in your case. Maybe the buyer was a drug dealer or you may have also been flagged on one of their 'watch lists'.

Anyways, total bummer

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

JPZ, I respect your opinions and look forward to reading your insightful posts, but on this subject, we will have to agree that we apparently do live in different worlds. In yours, the law works correctly, every time, and no one is placed in an improper situation. In mine, the law may be the same, but it is enforced with prejudice and self-interest of government.

I am pleased you live in the world you do; would that I could be there with you! Unfortunately, the world of which you speak no longer exists in my reality except in fairy-tale-style Civics textbooks.

Enjoyed the debate, sir.

TheRedneck

P.S.: if you ever do decide to visit the world I inhabit, leave the Civics textbooks at home.

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
reply to post by boncho

 

Can you imagine the amount of money they are making off the float if they do this to many of their clients. Banks here in my state did this for years holding pay checks for 2 weeks sometimes 'to make sure they clear'! All the time investing that held money to make a percentage on the float! When checks bounced because of this they made money on the charges for insufficient funds at 35-50 bucks a whack!! They finally passed laws to stop it here. This could be a huge scam!
Zindo

Exactly what I was thinking. Business practices can be ugly and alot of times the opposite of moralistic. I sell alot of bow staves (pieces of wood for making tradtional bows) using paypal, this is scaring the crap out of me.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Actually, it is called Conversion. In our state it is triple damages for the amount they converted to their own use. Conversion does not have to be permanent. Simple temporary use of your funds outside the ordinary course of business would be conversion.

I have never had a problem with PayPal and they once called me to confirm a payment.
If this is happening, something has changed.

Could it be that you were dealing in raw precious metals?

PS. You probably don't have to file suit in California. You should be able to do it in Oz. They would have to defend in Oz too.

After reading your ENTIRE thread I can say that you are just what these companies expect.

A complete pushover with absolutely no backbone.

You let a company treat you like a doormat and have essentially STOLEN your money and all you do is
write about your experience on a site like this.

YOU need to engage the BEST lawyers you can afford. YOU need to devote your liife to RUINING their reputation including but not restricted to the MEDIA, FACEBOOK, and even posting flyers and paying for your own website branding PAYPAL thieves.

YOU need to get hold of someone on the corporate board - ie their phone numbers home addresses and post them on your website. This is fairly easy to do if you know and can afford this type of investigative service.

YOU NEED to stop whining and start getting even.

YOU must start legal proceedings, name and shame some PAYPAL execs.

You need to get nasty and hold nothing back. Go to the police and report a THEFT by paypal...... the police must act on a THEFT. Report it too your local MP and take out a petition against PAYPAL in front of the Government offices in Australia.

Get off you butt and start acting like a man who has been WRONGED. Not like a housewife who has the ironing to do.

Get these little maggots and show them YOU are not to be messed with. The $302 is gone...and dont think about being out of pocket, think about destroying these people whatever it takes. I mean whatever. You have been mugged off and you know look like a lemon. You must be embarrassed and feel really small?

I would. Pull your finger out and for once take some action!!

reply to post by TheRedneck


I respect your opinions as well sir! It is tragic that you and I live in different worlds, but I suspect this is because you are equating human handling of law with actual law. Law always works correctly, justice, on the other hand, has its ups and downs, blindly stumbling along the path of law.

I do assure you that this world I live in certainly does exist, and while I would love to share a beer or coffee with you, I will not join you in your world to do so. Perhaps sometime you could join me here in the real world, where law is law and those who understand it have a much better chance of finding justice than those who do not. If you care to join me in this world, I will gladly buy you a beer or coffee, and we can leave the texts book behind, and toast to freedom, hard fought, and forever in need of vigilant guard.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by TheRedneck

 

I respect your opinions as well sir! It is tragic that you and I live in different worlds, but I suspect this is because you are equating human handling of law with actual law. Law always works correctly, justice, on the other hand, has its ups and downs, blindly stumbling along the path of law.

justice and law are both working correctly, for this moment in time. "human" handling of law is no different to the human handling of anything else. we invent it as we go along. eventually the need for law as a seperate entity from justice will no longer be necessary.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

JPZ, I respect your opinions and look forward to reading your insightful posts, but on this subject, we will have to agree that we apparently do live in different worlds. In yours, the law works correctly, every time, and no one is placed in an improper situation. In mine, the law may be the same, but it is enforced with prejudice and self-interest of government.

I am pleased you live in the world you do; would that I could be there with you! Unfortunately, the world of which you speak no longer exists in my reality except in fairy-tale-style Civics textbooks.

Enjoyed the debate, sir.

TheRedneck

P.S.: if you ever do decide to visit the world I inhabit, leave the Civics textbooks at home.

Well played TheRedneck. I think our life situations have colored our views to a similar hue. The meting out of justice is not always handed out judiciously. There has always been a "wrong side of the tracks" long before said "tracks" even existed. I believe it will exist long after those same "tracks" are obsolete. It's a sad reality, but a reality many of us live in. Keep up the good fight!

reply to post by tauristercus


lol, funny story man....

This is exactly why I like Bitcoin.

* No frozen accounts
* Cut out the middlemen
* No central issuing entity
* Virtually no fees at all
* Quick transactions 24/7
* Highly anonymous

And that is exactly why PayPal hates Bitcoin.

Well played TheRedneck. I think our life situations have colored our views to a similar hue. The meting out of justice is not always handed out judiciously. There has always been a "wrong side of the tracks" long before said "tracks" even existed. I believe it will exist long after those same "tracks" are obsolete. It's a sad reality, but a reality many of us live in. Keep up the good fight!

i actually think the "wrong side of the tracks" never existed. the tracks however do exist, which side of them you're on doesn't matter so much as which direction along the tracks you are moving. i can see a junction up ahead, which way are you going to go?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by TheRedneck

 

Welcome to the 21st century... there is now a full investigation of you happening behind your back. PayPal, while there is no love lost between me and them, is just the messenger.

Paypal is not a government agency and has no lawful authority to assess some persons liability for some legislative act in some country. They can certainly request forms be filled out, but they have no lawful authority to demand it. That demand becomes, just as the O.P. stated it was, extortion. Had they lawful authority to make such demands they would have been upfront with the O.P. when confronted. That they instead insisted the O.P. obtain a subpoena indicates just how lawful their act was.

The Australian government will throw Paypal under a bus, and indeed all ready have:

In June 2008, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission found that, "The evidence available does not support the view that PayPal is the most secure method of payment, or offers the best service for all transactions."

Long before there was 9-11, long before there was a push to nationalize identification, there was Western Union. This company still will allow money to be wired to someone without any identification. All that is needed is a password and the money identification number supplied by Western Union. How is it Western Union has managed to escape these legislative acts I wonder? Okay, no I don't wonder, I know and so does anyone else who knows the law.

edit on 16-5-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)

I used to be a clerk at a Western Union Terminal. I remember having to sign paperwork when congress passed the USA Act around the same time as the PATRIOT Act. This was around 10 years ago but I seem to remember the only significance to all the legalese was that I could be fined large sums of money by the US Gov't if I knowingly assisted in money laundering, fraud, ect. I was required by Federal law to report any suspicious transactions. Thankfully I never had a transaction that I would consider suspicious. The majority of the international business was day laborers sending money back home to Mexico.

reply to post by SkullAndBeats


Stupid way to make a post with contributing to the thread.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


and like any other currency is based completely on trust

reply to post by mzungu


I am a person whose family name followed me through my whole life. I have fought AND stayed on the right track for more than 35 years. Unfortunately prejudices do exist, people aren't perfect, rush judgments happen. It's the way it is. Some will change their mind about you, others will always be happy with preconceived notions. It is a fact of life for most people. One can ignore it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So even if the tracks are imaginary, they do have an effect.

I used to use paypal and started selling all my broken junk in the loft like things that dont work anymore but i informed buyers about it.
I was selling them really good until paypal said that i was possibly money laundering!
Total ammount of sales was just over £300 and they cancelled all the bids on offer right away and stopped my money. Like the OP i had to provide proof again of who i am etc.
Once it was all sorted out, i came out of paypal and ebay and dont deal with them again.