Don't know if it is the reason for the ban, but Niteos main product seems to be a service for creating spam networks. https://www.easyblognetworks.com, https://niteo.co/projects
So I came here to see if anyone looked up what sort of products and services they offer.
PayPal could have at least pointed towards the clause in their terms that is being used for the rejection.
My guess is either Google is encouraging PayPal to do this ban or PayPal is afraid of some societal backlash if people realize they are profiting off of spam.
I am honestly happy they are attempting to limit spam, but just surprised they are harming their bottom line to do it.
PayPal also does not do business with many Porn Websites, which are generally legal.
If you are subject to the whims and value judgments of individual PayPal employees, rather than policy documents, that is truly scary. Sell something that happens to offend a random employee's moral, political, or religious sensibilities? You might lose your account. What happens if a relative of a PayPal employee decides that you weren't fast enough with customer service, and tells them about it? Can that employee go searching for your account and kill it simply because they have a relative that wasn't impressed with the speed of your customer service?
The point is that these companies establish written policies for a reason. If those policies are not being followed, then businesses shouldn't use PayPal - not because they want to defend PBN sellers, but because their own business may be at risk even when they do nothing wrong.
This has always been the case. Paypal is extremely liberal with funds they seize or what accounts they shut down. At least, that's the image of them I've had for over a decade. Maybe they've since changed...but I wouldn't store any real amount of money in Paypal for any amount of time.
So if your policy documents don't actually govern your policies, then employees are banning businesses based on their personal value judgments. That is problematic for a large number of reasons.
Untrue. Often the exact breach is legally prohibited from being publicly shared, but if a company is banned, then a TOS breach has happened. There is an unbelievable amount of red tape and compliance within every process, both digital and human, that occurs with regards to money and transactions. Especially in the fintech space, PayPal internally is bound to governmental regulations and auditing far more strict than any regulations imposed on customers. To suggest that PayPal can just close accounts at whim for any other reason than enforcement of legally binding terms and confiscate customer funds is simply absurd.
Again, misplaced assumption and personal opinion. With some circumstances, especially if regulating bodies become involved, a company can be ordered by government to not share any further information with the other party, as well as freeze their funds. And even in the circumstances where that does not occur, I don't think a company is obligated to spell out for you what you violated. Sure, I agree that doesn't always look the best and it can seem like it happened "for no reason", but personally my opinion is that if someone told me I have violated TOS, I can read the few paragraphs for myself and figure it out. And they have over 250 million users, 8300 complaints over 3 years doesn't seem bad, and it looks like most of them were resolved. I get it, money gets people upset, and it's always tempting to see the "big bad corporation" turning its back on the little guy, but I personally feel like it gets blown out of proportion a lot. There's always more to the story... Being in the industry, it just frustrates me when people think these big companies can do whatever they want at will, when really their hands are often tied much more than you think.
I know my experiences with them very much fall in the “big company doing whatever it wants at will” category, and I am not alone. Scores of others over the years have wound up as frustrated as you are by these comments in their dealings with PayPal.
especially if regulating bodies become involved, a company can be ordered by government to not share any further information with the other party,
This would apply to an absurdly small percentage of the accounts that PayPal closes on a daily basis.
Let's just say that their credibility seems a bit sketchy.
Which is, a claim worth considering? I am not convinced yet.
I suppose that the fact that PayPal is a money transfer service, which is necessary for many kinds of businesses, and maybe kind of a monopoly, that could be a reason to treat them as more like a government than some businesses should be treated?
Hm.
That's no news. Many PP user are fully aware of that fact. There have been similar cases over the years, completely unrelated to PBNs. That's the deal with PP, take it or leave it.
I'm utterly sick of this kind of junk.
PBNs are garbagey, but trying to put them all down is unrealistic. And even if they could be stopped, it would only be a band aid fix, not addressing the real problems.
Spammers and their ilk, though, are not really famous for sticking to the truth.
I understand the dissatisfaction with half-measures. But I would argue as long as the actions have a meaningful impact and there isn't a promising alternative, it is still worthwhile.
I can imagine several plausible reasons, related to potential liability, but does that mean that if we're trying to outsource business functions to specialist firms that we can't expect them to be transparent in their operations?
In my opinion the reason for ban, even though mentioned that unrelated to their SaaS offering, is likely higher number of transactions with parties who have been also baned for some shady practices. Such rat clusters are usualy nuked in batch.
Disclosure: I used to work in payment industry.
Unfortunately from the brand's perspective (Visa, Mastercard, etc.) it doesn't matter which of your product is using their channel to process payments, if the business is involved in doing something shady, the whole company will be flagged. If you already passed KYC 12 years ago, but your business _today_ won't pass KYC if you were to apply again, then it's a matter of time until you get kicked out.
Maybe you should focus on making your business run in the ethical clear first. You’re not getting any sympathy from me that your unethical practices got you cut off from financing.