Why is it 'illegal' to charge a paypal fee ?

[Ns1]

<< edblor

So when you use a credit card to make the payment you get hit for 3%? and the seller does too? Well I guess paypal is making $$ at both ends. Sorry...don't mess with paypal much. >>




If you're a verified premier/business member you get charged 2.5% + 30 cents for receiving a payment via paypal

There is no charge to send money

 

[LostHiWay]

Since merchants can't charge a surcharge on CC purchases by law, how come at computer shows I always see people advertising a Cash price and Credit card price. With the cash price always being cheaper by a few bucks?

 

[guyver01]

<< Since merchants can't charge a surcharge on CC purchases by law, how come at computer shows I always see people advertising a Cash price and Credit card price. With the cash price always being cheaper by a few bucks? >>



because with cash.. there's less paper trail

with credit cards, the merchant has to pay a fee to the credit card company, for the 'priveledge' to accept their card..

that $100 purchase you just made on a credit card, for $100 worth of merchandise..... the store only keeps about $95 of that...

so... in effect... credit cards are also what keep prices high...

 

[b0mbrman]

<< if you're really that stingy say something like a dollar discount if you pay via money order ^_^ >>



Exactly. Silly, but true.

Say "$1 handling fee that is waived you pay with cashier's check or money order or anything that's not Paypal"

 

[Dually]

It isn't illegal in anyway for people anywhere to talk about the corporate policy of PayPal.

[Insert- I am a law student here]

 

[yakko]

<< Red Dawn

And if I want the opinion of an "Elite" member, I'll let you know. >>

That is such a scathing comeback. I don't know how Red Dawn lived through that.

 

[Red Dawn]

<< That is such a scathing comeback. I don't know how Red Dawn lived through that. >>

Hey, I'm still recovering from it.

 

[Lucky]

<<

<< That is such a scathing comeback. I don't know how Red Dawn lived through that. >>

Hey, I'm still recovering from it. >>



LMAO. Good one yakko.

 

[bsobel]

> heres one example, albeit pertaining to the nice people who offer free carfax reports here occasionally

You are of course refering to the nice people who defaud CarFax out of thousands of dollars and risk getting the entire forum shutdown over a CarFax lawsuit? With this thread you can at least argue that PayPal wouldn't have as much of a case if they decided to persue this issue against Anandtech itself, also the damages listed are very small on a pertransaction basis (don't know what penalties that California law calls for). As for the CarFax posts, AnAndTech itself would be liable if they didn't prevent them and your talking about posts that are defrauding upto $5000 at a shot in actual damages, don't even want to think of the punitive ones.

Best,
Bastard

 

[Aceman]

Red, I see you ate your Wheaties today and washed them down with piss and vinegar!

Anyways, I would rather have traders work out paypal "fees" thru a pm. A lot of times, from what I understand, it doesn't cost a seller anything to accept paypals. If it's going to be a credit card upload to my paypal account, I usually tell the seller that before completing the transaction. Geezus people, most of the time we're talking about a buck or less! So if your a seller you spend a $1-$2 to have the "cash" in hand before shipment. If you're the buyer, you getting the convenience of sitting on your ass and not worrying about going down to get a money order ( 50c cents?) and a stamp, 34 cents.

 

[Lucky]

<< > heres one example, albeit pertaining to the nice people who offer free carfax reports here occasionally

You are of course refering to the nice people who defaud CarFax out of thousands of dollars and risk getting the entire forum shutdown over a CarFax lawsuit? With this thread you can at least argue that PayPal wouldn't have as much of a case if they decided to persue this issue against Anandtech itself, also the damages listed are very small on a pertransaction basis (don't know what penalties that California law calls for). As for the CarFax posts, AnAndTech itself would be liable if they didn't prevent them and your talking about posts that are defrauding upto $5000 at a shot in actual damages, don't even want to think of the punitive ones.

Best,
Bastard >>





Talk away, I dont care. Fact is that there were a few nice members who performed a very admirable service until you opened your mouth, tattled on them, and got them banned. Do you work or have a connection to carfax?

 

[wyvrn]

<< Talk away, I dont care. Fact is that there were a few nice members who performed a very admirable service until you opened your mouth, tattled on them, and got them banned. Do you work or have a connection to carfax?

>>



Yeah really, why the hell do you care?

 

[bsobel]

First, on topic with this post their is a good article about this at Credit Card Surcharging. I'm still looking the laws over, but it seems that offering a cash discount of less than 5% may still be legal (trying to find the exact California law)

Second "performed a very admirable service". I don't know why you can't get this, that 'admirable service' was defrauding another company out of thousands of dollars. Wrong legally, wrong morally, and both AnAndTech and the posters could be liable for some very serious money if it continued. For what it's worth, I never expected anyone to be banned, I presumed the threads would be locked with a warning and that would be that. But, as I stated in the original thread, the final decision is the moderators and I defer to their judgement.

Bill

 

[Lucky]

<<

Second "performed a very admirable service". I don't know why you can't get this, that 'admirable service' was defrauding another company out of thousands of dollars. Wrong legally, wrong morally, and both AnAndTech and the posters could be liable for some very serious money if it continued. For what it's worth, I never expected anyone to be banned, I presumed the threads would be locked with a warning and that would be that. But, as I stated in the original thread, the final decision is the moderators and I defer to their judgement.

Bill >>





Well, they werent exactly deprived of that much money. I doubt everyone asking would have bought a report in the first place, Im sure many were simply curious about the history of their current car. And you havent asnwered my question of if you have a relationship with Carfax. To the best of my knowledge, it doesnt cost them extra to run a report each time.

 

[HappyFace]

PayPal is a very powerful force in the online world, and they definately know how to pull strings to get the big boys on their side. If AT knows about terms of service violations, and doesn't do anything about it, they could possibly be sued.

 

[Lucky]

<< PayPal is a very powerful force in the online world, and they definately know how to pull strings to get the big boys on their side. >>




examples of that please?

 

[bsobel]

> Well, they werent exactly deprived of that much money. I doubt everyone asking would have bought a report in the first place, Im sure many were simply curious about the history of their current car.

I agree with you completely on this, I doubt 10% of those people would have actually paid. But, if Carfax gets wind of this and persues it they will either a) try to charge each report at the maximum price or b) try to impose some vendor pricing. If they persue it in court they would ask for punitive damages also.

> And you havent asnwered my question of if you have a relationship with Carfax. To the best of my knowledge, it doesnt cost them extra to run a report each time.

Long story which I really can't get into, but I have a friend who got in trouble with a similar company (not CarFax) and wound up having to spend some money for lawyers before the whole thing finally got worked out.

Bill