Paypal vs Regretsy

Surprised this one isn't already here;

http://thegreengeeks.wordpress.com/2011/...-policies/

http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/05/cats-1-kids-0/

Long Story Short:

Paypal froze and locked account because the "Donate" button was being used for a charitable cause by a non-charity. Quotes from the paypal peeps are ... impressive.

Go read.

I had never even heard of Regretsy before this, but that's pretty messed up.

"You can use the donate button to raise money for a sick cat, but not poor people."

trollface

PAYPAL: You aren’t going to be able to get around this. It’s too late, we know what you’re trying to do and we’re not going to let you do it.
ME: But there are hundreds of toys! Do you think it’s reasonable to create a drop down menu for hundreds of gifts, all of them different, and create an inventory for each as “one?” So that every time one sells, it’s sold out, and the customer has to keep choosng options and going through check out to see if they can find a gift that’s still available?
PAYPAL: Yes, I think it’s reasonable.

doubletrollface

It should surprise me how stupid people are, but it really doesn't, anymore. I never liked paypal anyway, they've always pulled a ton of plantain moves on me and a any of my friends I know that use it.

lolpaypal, really now?

I don't even know where to begin with this lol

Paypal's always been good to me so it's disturbing to see them behave this way and have to wonder if they'll come around to screw me too :/

Paypal's always been good to me so it's disturbing to see them behave this way and have to wonder if they'll come around to screw me too :/

It really depends what you use it for, it's dangerous for things like ebay or ingame transactions because paypal is utterly biased against whoever sends the money. Although I don't agree with any of this, it's clear the rep is assuming they added this donate button as a way to avoid taxes as they would report all the income as charitable donations. So in his perspective he's doing all these poor victims a favor lol

That logic makes no sense.
Paypal generates a 1099-MISC on all income sent to a paypal account during the year, whether it was via donate or not.
The whole reason they make you do the verification of whether or not you're a charity is to determine if you're exempt from this, and if you're not, you get the 1099 send & filed. All tax liability is then on the recipient to prove/disprove.

That logic makes no sense.
Paypal generates a 1099-MISC on all income sent to a paypal account during the year, whether it was via donate or not.
The whole reason they make you do the verification of whether or not you're a charity is to determine if you're exempt from this, and if you're not, you get the 1099 send & filed. All tax liability is then on the recipient to prove/disprove.

No no I understand that but what I'm saying is paypal is intervening as if they are doing a good cause, which they shouldn't be doing

I don't see what the issue or cause for concern is here. The person collecting the money is:

(1) Not a 501.3© organization
(2) Trying to collect for a charitable cause

It reeks of possible fraud. Paypal has the right to freeze a fraudulent account. Trying to fight against Paypal by saying, "Think of the children! The families you are hurting!" is a red herring and doesn't refute Paypal's argument. Regretsy should have contacted Paypal before trying to use them as any sort of charitable collection agency.

I don't see what the issue or cause for concern is here. The person collecting the money is:

(1) Not a 501.3© organization
(2) Trying to collect for a charitable cause

It reeks of possible fraud. Paypal has the right to freeze a fraudulent account. Trying to fight against Paypal by saying, "Think of the children! The families you are hurting!" is a red herring and doesn't refute Paypal's argument. Regretsy should have contacted Paypal before trying to use them as any sort of charitable collection agency.

That in itself is true, but not their reaction or comments when the person tried to contact them about it. They were all kinds of condescending and mean to boot.

That in itself is true, but not their reaction or comments when the person tried to contact them about it. They were all kinds of condescending and mean to boot.

Oh, they were being MEAN! How horrible. Perhaps I should file a lawsuit for their indiscretion. >_>;;;

This is another red herring.

Also, regarding "sick cat vs. other people" - there is a difference.

For a sick cat:

People are donating to YOU for YOU. The only trust here is that they believe your story and people are sending money to you as a gift.

For other people:

People are donating to YOU for OTHER PEOPLE. This makes you a charity and creates a trust relationship that you will forward the money. But how can you collect for charity when you aren't a charitable organization? FRAUD.

Oh, they were being MEAN! How horrible. Perhaps I should file a lawsuit for their indiscretion. >_>;;;

This is another red herring.

The person on the phone did not need to be that much of a plantain is all I'm saying. It's not something to sue them over, but it's certainly not the most ethical way to handle what is essentially a person they are making money off of.

I don't see what the issue or cause for concern is here. The person collecting the money is:

(1) Not a 501.3© organization
(2) Trying to collect for a charitable cause

It reeks of possible fraud. Paypal has the right to freeze a fraudulent account. Trying to fight against Paypal by saying, "Think of the children! The families you are hurting!" is a red herring and doesn't refute Paypal's argument. Regretsy should have contacted Paypal before trying to use them as any sort of charitable collection agency.

Yeah fiel that's what I was essentially trying to say. However because of the available ToS on using that feature availble to the public, they should have not been flagged by fraud at that level is what the public has a problem with, or let them reasonably resolve the misunderstanding.

That in itself is true, but not their reaction or comments when the person tried to contact them about it. They were all kinds of condescending and mean to boot.

You have to remember this is the last conversation, not the first. I'm sure they kept asking to go up until someone put their foot down and essentially told them to f`uck off.

"Why at Paypal is wrong regarding at Regretsy."
God, I feel so dumb whenever I realize these things.

Regardless, even though their attitude is outrageously unacceptable to me, considering the somewhat good image I've had of them, them intervening with a possible fraud exploit isn't wrong. Sure, vague policies are a no-no, advertising is oftentimes annoying, but if I were put in their position, I wouldn't be ready to give the benefit of the doubt when it comes to thousands of people's money (even though it's $2 each); although, I wouldn't be so firm about "knowing what they're up to".

To be fair, Paypal is surely accountable for their policies' vagueness, at least to my limited knowledge. This whole problem isn't Regretsy's problem.
Perhaps they could have handled the problem a bit less drastically and come up with some arrangement that wasn't going to make anybody's head ex/implode, then proceeded to make corresponding changes to their policies.

EDIT: When's that Google's equivalent of Paypal coming out again? Is it Google Checkout?

http://thenextweb.com/insider/2011/12/06...-donation/

or in their own words;

https://www.thepaypalblog.com/2011/12/re...esolution/

I like how payPal works:

Quote from Regretsy:

In the meantime, Paypal has issued a statement saying they have made a donation and they are working with me, but I have not spoken to anyone yet. I will let you know when I do.

Yeah, Leah told me about that after I posted those. Eesh

Wow. At first I thought Paypal was really in the wrong, but after reading all those threads and articles, seems it is a really complicated situation that Paypal just didn't handle well. I guess it's good that it is being resolved though.