Hacker News Reader

PayPal is not a bank.

You have no recourse if they screw you (e.g., by suspending your account and keeping your money for 180 days).

Unlike a bank they will terminate your PayPal account if your store lists items they find objectionable, such as anything related to firearms.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?...

See the recently launched GunPal for a response to this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GunPal

PayPal might not be evil, but they are certainly not operating with your best interests at heart, and -- unlike a bank -- they aren't regulated.

It is worth noting PayPal's activity is regulated within the EU:

"On May 15, 2007, PayPal announced that it would move its European operations from the UK to Luxembourg, commencing July 2, 2007 as PayPal (Europe) S.à r.l. & Cie, S.C.A.[33] This would be as a Luxembourg entity regulated as a bank by the Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF), the Luxembourg equivalent of the FSA.[34] PayPal Luxembourg will then provide the PayPal service throughout the European Union (EU)." -- PayPal's Wikipedia page.

This status, within the EU, provides some protection for both businesses and customers.

The way I read the linked article, PayPal just don't list gun stores in their PayPal Shops portal.

I've seen examples of more direct action.

For example, Soldier's Angels had their entire PayPal account disabled for simply processing the payments for a raffle where one prize was a pistol.

They were simply selling raffle tickets for someone else's raffle, and they're a registered charity, but PayPal is very strict: it's "relate[d] to sales of … (h) ammunition, firearms, or certain firearm parts or accessories", so boom, account disabled.

http://snarkybytes.com/?p=4015

"Go to your bank and try to open a checking account with a debit card with no minimum balance, a positive interest rate, ability to transfer money instantly without writing a check (basically a wire transfer) for free, no insufficient fund charges, no monthly fees, free online and mobile banking, etc."

ING Direct has all of these.

ING Direct doesn't have a strict minimum balance, but will close your account if you use too many "free" services or if you need to much personal support.

"We fire our customers is a colorful way of putting it," said ING Direct's Kuhlmann. "While the banking business says the customer is always right, we're online guys and you can only do business with us in a certain way."

-- "4% interest...why not bank online?" (http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/02/pf/debt/internet_banking/ind...)

I've not had my account closed despite being a customer for almost 5 years, and I've been everywhere from broke to carrying a modest balance.

It's probably fair to point this out, though: at least ING Direct is highly unlikely to arbitrarily close my account and freeze my funds because they think I ripped someone off on eBay.

>Go to your bank and try to open a checking account with a debit card with no minimum balance, a positive interest rate, ability to transfer money instantly without writing a check (basically a wire transfer) for free, no insufficient fund charges, no monthly fees, free online and mobile banking, etc.

You can in fact open bank accounts like that in many countries (e.g. England). Charging for simple services like wire transfers is an odd US practice.

Just because you do a lot of good does not mean you can just get off with a lot of bad. Their customer service is horrible and they don't deal with issues such as this the proper way. I agree with you, they've done a ton to democratize banking. What good is all that if you lose all the money they've allowed you to make because they have poor customer service practices?

breck,

I disagree, to me when you don't offer customer service availability to departments and don't offer any real explanations for denial of service, that is bad.

Just because a "big bank" is worse, doesn't make Paypal "good". Credit Unions are the only true "good" in the banking industry. The credit unions are non-profit and thusly they don't try to gouge you.

Sidenote: non-profit doesn't imply something isn't a scam or involves fraud.

Gouge?

We all have to live by selling dearly and buying lowly.

What you describe is ineptitude and inability to provide service at a massive scale. That is bad, but it is not "evil."

Well said.

To each story there are both sites of the story. No point was being written outlining the reasons why his accounts was being closed. If he would be serious about doing business, he could have provided all that information in the beginning.

anApple,

Four Bean Soup's account wasn't closed, the paypal account is fine. Paypal disabled the gateway credit card processing with no explanation of why. Providing paperwork is easy, but they never asked for more of it to get the gateway set back up.

"Go to your bank and try to open a checking account with a debit card with no minimum balance, a positive interest rate, ability to transfer money instantly without writing a check (basically a wire transfer) for free, no insufficient fund charges, no monthly fees, free online and mobile banking, etc."

You just described ingdirect.com.

I don't think anyone actually thinks PayPal is "evil" (in the Jungian sense), but, as this story suggests, and the story it linked to suggests, and as the number of upvotes its received suggests, there is plenty of evidence that indicates PayPal isn't known for stellar customer service, and therefore you might at least want to consider having a Plan B before signing up with them.

Just ask Google:

http://www.google.com/search?q=paypal+horror+story

Well put! I think the headline was just for grabbing attention, but the moral of the story is to always have a backup plan if you use paypal.

You should always have a backup plan no matter who you use. You don't want a single point of failure on your ability to receive payments.

Upvotes don't always indicate agreement.

I know I upvote many stories that are well written, interesting, and thought provoking, even when I don't agree with them.

I typically upvote articles to "save" them for future reference. It doesn't in any way mean I "agree" with the point of view, just that I think either the article or the discussion attached to it is something I might want to revisit for some reason.