2 PayPal Issues

[svista08]

The ACH and re-presentment were done without my knowledge or authorization.

I didn't know if I posted 9 auctions that 7 of them come back as fraud, and there was no warning. Like I said I know now these items aren't covered. Even if I DID know about seller protection, I wouldn't think that I would have 7/9 auctions come back as fraud - no one knows the fraud rate is so high until they get scammed, which isn't fair. I've had my account for 6 years, all positive feedback, and I didn't know this. I browsed around on some other seller's auctions and found some other sellers who were also selling these certificates have the same issue too, some of them had perfect feedback but didn't know the fraud rates were high and lost money. In fact, I think everyone selling these items are probably getting scammed before they realize they are susceptible to fraud - "PayBay" should warn the seller's about this rather them allowing them to get scammed.

I still use PayPal and eBay because they are the sites that everyone else uses so there's no point of switching to an alternative site or anything like that.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Scarcella vs AOL
Civil Court Judge Debra R. Samuels ruled invalid the forum-selection clause in the company's online service contract.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1096473909534

PayPal has been sued in NY before and there are courts that will hold the forum selection clause unenforceable.

You picked an unusual case. As I suspected, its a small claims case which was upheld on very limited circumstances (spelled out in the decision). The biggest limitation being that the VA selection clause was the problematic one. You have no such issue here. You'll note that there are no such cases against paypal's forum selection clause.

As a side note, I know the plaintiff in that suit - although he was technically "pro se" in the case, he happens to be an attorney. Another strike against you

 

[svista08]

Are you saying there's 0 chance or unlikely that they can be sued in NY?
If 0 chance, then if I go to Santa Clara I can sue them?

Strujan vs AOL forum selection clause also denied

PayPal has an agent in NY
NATIONAL REGISTERED AGENTS INC
875 AVE OF THE AMERICAS
STE 501
NEW YORK, NEW YORK, 10001

 

[svista08]

Comb v. Paypal, 218


Having considered the terms of the User Agreement generally and the arbitration clause in particular, as well as the totality of the circumstances, the Court concludes that the User Agreement and arbitration clause are substantively unconscionable under California law and that arbitration cannot be compelled herein. Good cause therefore appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motions to compel individual arbitration are DENIED.

Comb v. PayPal Inc.


Under California law, "unconsionability has both procedural and substantive components." "A contract is procedurally unconscionable if it is a contract of adhesion." "A contract of adhesion, in turn, is a 'standardized contract, which, imposed and drafted by the party of superior bargaining strength, relegates to the subscribing party only the opportunity to adhere to the contract or reject it.'" "The substantive component is satisfied by overly harsh or one-sided results that shock the conscience. The two elements operate on a sliding scale such that the more significant one is, the less significant the other need be."

The Court held that PayPal's User Agreement was a contract of adhesion, and hence procedurally unconscionable, because it was a form agreement drawn by PayPal, a party of superior bargaining power, and offered to its customers on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

The Court also found that the User Agreement and its arbitration provisions were substantively unconscionable. In reaching this conclusion, the Court pointed to a number of provisions contained in the Agreement, including provisions by which:

1. PayPal could amend the agreement at any time without notice to users, which amendments would be binding on them;
2. PayPal could freeze all of the funds in a customer's account pending its resolution of any dispute;
3. The arbitration provisions mandated arbitration pursuant to the commercial rules of AAA, which was cost prohibitive, in light of evidence that such a procedure would cost $5000, while the average PayPal transaction was $55;
4. The arbitration provision required all arbitrations to proceed in Santa Clara County, California, where PayPal was headquartered, while PayPal's customers resided throughout the United States; and
5. The arbitration provision prohibited joinder of claims among individuals, requiring each instead to proceed individually.

Taken as a whole, these provisions rendered the User Agreement and its arbitration provisions unconscionable. The Court accordingly denied PayPal's motion to compel arbitra
Craig Comb, et al. v. PayPal, Inc. - Internet Library of Law and Court Decisions

 

[You Are Guilty]

Look, what *I* think is immaterial. If you want to sue them, you know what the big issue is going to be so you're are prepared as you can be at this point. Maybe you'll get a sympathetic judge, you never know.

Of course, even if you clear the procedural hurdle, you still have a number of substantive problems to address, as described by the other responses here.