Per the Current Events subforum rules, please do not carry grievances between threads
Actually he once lamented that it's political cla correctness gone mad that he can't grab female coworkers asses.
PayPal has reinstated its $2,500 fine for "misinformation."
- Thread starter gorfias
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That's probably because they watch too much Jimmy Dore. Jimmy needs to limit how long his shows are because he suplexes his own arguments many times and its probably because he just rambles. Cogent thoughts are better than many thoughts
But I do have to say Gorfias is more willing to concede points when they think they got something wrong
This is all only relevant i you use PayPal for this. They don't care about what you write on Twitter or wherever. But they surely don't want to be investigated for processing payment for illicit goods.
Now what actually counts as illicit goods is jurisdiction specific and a headache to resolve if you have millions of online shops selling stuff all the world over. So they made a list of stuff they don't want to see in addition to the "you must respect the laws" clause. And the stuff they don't want to be involved with as payment processor might even include stuff that is not strictly illegal, only bad for the image.
That is not really a problem. I mean, yes, with those ToS they could try to deduct 2500 if you sell "Mein Kampf" over PayPal. And you cold try to sue them for it and might even have a chance to get your money back.
Now what actually counts as illicit goods is jurisdiction specific and a headache to resolve if you have millions of online shops selling stuff all the world over. So they made a list of stuff they don't want to see in addition to the "you must respect the laws" clause. And the stuff they don't want to be involved with as payment processor might even include stuff that is not strictly illegal, only bad for the image.
That is not really a problem. I mean, yes, with those ToS they could try to deduct 2500 if you sell "Mein Kampf" over PayPal. And you cold try to sue them for it and might even have a chance to get your money back.
Given the ToS, that is how I think it would work. And if the amount they deduct from your account is $2,500, a defense in court will be that the user has already agreed that is a minimum amount of the difficult to quantify damages.
But that's just it. Damages isn't "difficult to quantify." Damages are an already itemized and legally awarded, very specific amount. To be able just to confiscate any amount of money, even a dollar let alone $2,500... it's entirely ridiculous. No company with any legal department, or outsourced legal advisors (one of which PayPal certainly has) would ever attempt just to say "I'm claiming damages" (like it's a magic "dibs" or something) and just take a customer's money. Because when they get sued, that's when the customer's legal representation has a fairly good chance of saying in a court of law "I'm claiming punitive damages" and getting a multiplier put on that confiscated amount. Enough to easily repay the customer's $2,500... probably a dozen or more times over and have the customer's lawyer paid the largest amount they could get away with billing (and that can be a lot.)
It's a scare piece from a bs source with no basis in legality or reality. As far back as I can track it is The Gateway Pundit (I didn't look much further, sounds like the bs they write,) and I won't bother linking that right-wing tabloid garbage. It doesn't pass the one test that scare pieces rarely can pass.
Find me one time it happened.
Find me one time a drug dealer put fentanyl in a kid's Halloween candy to "hook" them. Find me one single instance where someone paid for an item, that wasn't specifically an illegal item to sell, where PayPal decided to use a magic dibs damage claim and just confiscate $2,500. And then (because who wouldn't fight it in court) when challenged in court, the court identifies an electronic TOS as a reason to rule in favor of PayPal. And not some "well, someone on r/thegovernmentfuckedme or whatever bs social media 'source' said that it is happening to them." But an actual account. It would by definition have a court record, and those documents would be publicly available.
But let's just say that the TOS is rock solid and allows PayPal to just take whatever amount of money from a user that they choose for whatever reason and simply claim "damages" to make it "legal." They'd have done it. If it was legal they would have done it to EVERYONE already. A for-profit business takes as much money as they can as quickly as they can with very few exceptions. Give PayPal permission to just confiscate money... and they would, to as many as they could manage.
While that is likely to be true, is there not a chance that it's a scare tactic by Paypal? They've got expensive lawyers and most people don't, so play nice or else? Ok, they'd actually have to follow through for it to really work, but just making idle threats sometimes gets some results.
Earlier in this thread I do ask why the interest now as this ToS appears to have been in place for some time and I do not know of them every applying it. I do not find this sort of thing in other ToS but there are a lot out there so I don't really know how common this is.
The "difficult to quantify" is also taken directly from the ToS itself, I think to justify why they state your are agreeing to this sum so they don't have to figure it out.
If they ever do this (as they report they could: deduct $2,500 from your account) your remedy is to sue to get it back. You, little guy, up against their massive legal team. And they will use your having agreed to the ToS or you wouldn't have an account, as a defense.
But again, why all the interest now?
Even so, were I their lawyer, I would remove this $2,500 thing from the ToS. They're going to scare customers away.
Yes, immediately and without question. Any lawyer in the country would take the case pro bono and salivate at the deep pockets they are about to get their hands into. It is a SURE WIN. The "massive legal team" would be hammering out a deal for a settlement within the hour and telling PayPal they'd be getting off seriously lucky if they only had to pay out double what they confiscated.
To fuel a right-wing persecution complex I suppose.
To what end though. They are a for-profit company. There isn't any profit in such a scare tactic. My take on this, someone seems to be copying boilerplate TOS legalese meant specifically to apply to situations involving payments for illegal items (drugs, what have you,) which could be confiscated by the government from PayPal accounts... and pasting it out of context to some anti-misinformation statement in the TOS that has actually has nothing to do with the $2,500 clause.
I'm not as certain about that pro bono lawyer. I would be interested in what the outcome of such a case would be. The defense that they get to determine what violates their ToS and that you already agreed to a min. $2,500 is a pretty good one.
In general, how have courts handled violations of ToS cases? Who really reads all of every of them? So many, so long, so dull and often incomprehensible. But they exist for a reason. I'll have to review that some.
But your idea of how PayPal may have come by the ToS (copying and pasting without really ensuring what is there?) It's possible but I doubt it. And certainly by now, they know this is there. They should remove it. I know it makes me hesitant to do business with them. I removed by financial information from Venmo for this reason. The account is still there if ever needed.
My mistake, I'm sorry. I wasn't insinuating that PayPal copy and pasted the TOS wording. I'm saying The Gateway Pundit or whomever the source was did so.
Not the final word on the issue but https://www.upcounsel.com/tos-violations
"The fact is that you have little recourse in court if you agree to the terms of service. This also happens when users fail to understand the TOS or never read and simply clicked the agree button.
"The fact is that you have little recourse in court if you agree to the terms of service. This also happens when users fail to understand the TOS or never read and simply clicked the agree button.
- Note: Hitting the agree button comprises an official signature on your end, and you are bound to the terms of the agreement."
So yes, if you signed and agreed to a TOS, a business can legally and immediately terminate their service with you if you violate it. That however is a far cry from being able to steal from you. Someone could have a signed and notarized statement from me giving them my legal permission to kill me. But see what happens when you try and hand that to a cop or a judge when you are standing there with the bloody knife. You can't put something against the law into a TOS and try to enforce it just because someone clicked without reading. That statement might give PayPal some legal leverage if someone sued them because a product they bought and paid for with PayPal injured them and they for some reason included PayPal in the lawsuit. Or maybe if law enforcement was exercising asset forfeiture for the claim of illegal activity... But again, just find me one case ever where someone wound up losing $2,500 because they used PayPal to buy a Trump hat or MyPillow or whatever. Traditionally a company retains the right to refuse service to anyone. If PayPal really wanted to throw their weight around politically, they wouldn't allow websites or services to OFFER PayPal as a payment option for items or storefronts they disagreed with in the first place. The really funny thing about this story, it is itself misinformation.
Last edited:
Is it stealing to retain funds you believe you are owed? I don't think so, especially in that you have a remedy.
This seems to me to be more like law requiring "replevin" be your remedy. Akin to a mechanic's lien. You have your car serviced but refuse to pay the mechanic claiming they did something wrong or not requested. The mechanic in most jurisdictions has a mechanic's lien on the car. They keep the car. If you want it back, you either have to pay him, or do an action for replevin demanding the return of your personal property. Your $, including accounts, is considered your personal property.
Replevin - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
That would just be killing the golden goose.
This is a fairly new provision so I'm not too surprised there aren't any resolved cases yet, but isn't PayPal currently embroiled in a class action suit over freezing funds from accounts for poorly defined acceptable use policy violations?
I don't know about poorly defined. Seems to be a bunch of claims against their customer service practices tacked on to the biggest claim, by a company PayPal accused of selling injectables that were not FDA approved and cited the User Agreement... not the Terms of Service. Those are two different things. And again, these don't seem to be everyday users of PayPal. These do seem to be businesses that contract with PayPal to offer it as a type of payment. Again, a far cry from Joe Average buying Glenn Beck book and getting a $2,500 charge from PayPal billed to them.
Because that's something that companies "never" do to boost short term profits ahead of end of quarter and a shareholder meeting... right?
If you think that's how a mechanic's lien works, you've been scammed. A mechanic cannot legally keep your vehicle until you pay them. Legally a mechanic can put a lien on a vehicle they have repaired and have not received payment for. That lien must be paid off in a specific amount of time, determined by a court. And if not, the car can eventually and through a very very lengthy legal process be sold at an auction where the proceeds will go to the car's owner (not the mechanic) minus the amount owed to the mechanic. Other than bidding for it and winning at the auction, AT NO TIME is it legal for the mechanic to keep the owner's property from them without their consent.Is it stealing to retain funds you believe you are owed? I don't think so, especially in that you have a remedy.
This seems to me to be more like law requiring "replevin" be your remedy. Akin to a mechanic's lien. You have your car serviced but refuse to pay the mechanic claiming they did something wrong or not requested. The mechanic in most jurisdictions has a mechanic's lien on the car. They keep the car. If you want it back, you either have to pay him, or do an action for replevin demanding the return of your personal property. Your $, including accounts, is considered your personal property.
Replevin - Wikipedia
As for Replevin, neat. That's a term I have never heard of. Still, just a rough reading of how it works from the wikipedia article... it seems to me that if that were to apply to the PayPal situation, PayPal would be the ones applying for it citing damages to the company and a return of funds.
I'd think your explanation of the mechanic's aka an artisans lien would vary jurisdiction to jurisdiction but can't write you are incorrect. Perhaps in all jurisdictions you would need a court order to set a date when you can then sell the car if not paid. Hard to think someone builds a building, refuses to pay the workers for it, and they'd need a court order to retain the building until payment is made. Maybe.
I think you are wrong about replevin being for a company claiming damages. They're claiming damages for which they are owed, not for the return of something you claim to be yours but another is unjustly retaining. The argument could be made but I'd think a judge would tell you to use law that is more on point.
EDIT: Sheesh, can't get agreement on these terms even being interchangeable:
" A builder, contractor, or subcontractor can record a mechanic's lien at a Registry of Deeds on property (not automobiles) for which they have supplied labor and/or materials in order to secure payment for their work. "
EDIT: More on point than mechanic's lien:
https://www.sgrlaw.com/does-the-money-in-your-bank-account-really-belong-to-you/
New York banking institutions have a long-established common law “right of setoff.” Under the right of setoff, where a borrower is indebted to the bank, the bank may deduct funds from the borrower’s savings or checking account to satisfy a matured debt.
Still reviewing...
Last edited:
Fair enough, but this penalty is more likely to be levied against someone selling a Glenn Beck book than the buyer, if only because the seller is far more likely to have the funds in the account to take. Because the seller is the one distributing misinformation, after all.
Or, and follow me on this one, if they are really looking to throw their weight around politically... they could just refuse to do business with a seller selling Glenn Beck books. You know, something legal they could do as opposed to something that could legally backfire on them costing them millions.
So...investigate every item a seller might potentially sell in detail to ensure there is nothing that might be objectionable to them, and require every item added to their catalog get pre-approval from PayPal before it can be sold? Neither PayPal or the sellers want to deal with the overhead of that.