This does not seem to be accurate. I couldn't find anything in their TOS other than reasonable sounding restrictions on what can be sold. Sorry.
So it depends on the interpretation of the Acceptable Use Policy and how that policy changes over time.
edit: As the person below me points out, the acceptable use policy is defined at https://www.paypal.com/us/legalhub/acceptableuse-full, which includes obscenity and intolerance.
> items that promote hate, violence, racial intolerance, or the financial exploitation of a crime
to
> the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory
And otherwise mostly the same as it was in 2011, including the $2,500
"(f) the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory or the financial exploitation of a crime"
This could apply to the French author Michel Houellebecq for his novel Submission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submission_(novel)#Controversy), along with another novel by the author.
Let's not even entertain the thought of this rule applied to various rap artists in popular culture.
"(g) items that are considered obscene" & "(i) certain sexually oriented materials or services"
This could apply to a number of artists, such as Robert Mapplethorpe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mapplethorpe#Controvers...). His art was considered obscene, and prurient, yet is now exhibited in major museums.
If your enemy were to again power, or an unjust ruler, how might these laws be used against you and the culture? Just because your "side" is winning now doesn't mean that will always be the case. Just because we're now "enlightened" and we would no longer jail Galileo or throw a fuss over Mapplethorpe does not mean that will always be the case. Are the rules just? Why is a finance company policing expression on the internet? Why are we turning to a finance company for moral guidance?
I don't see the difference between the old and the new terms regarding your comment, I'm afraid.
Now is that a dumb role that obviously invites arbitrary enforcement? Sure. But it's not new, those issues were there for at least 11 years.
To my view, there's a world of difference between "You can't use PayPal as a payment processor for gun sales" and "You can't use PayPal to pay pals back for covering your range fees last Saturday."
Yet the AUP seems broad enough to cover both: "You may not use the PayPal service for activities that... relate to transactions involving... ammunition, firearms, or certain firearm parts or accessories...." https://www.paypal.com/us/legalhub/acceptableuse-full
Firearms are for absolutely no reason what-so-ever taboo on most payment processors. The AUP is broad enough to cover both because the pearl clutchers don't see a difference. The best part of this is "certain firearm parts or accessories" as if they had a qualified expert anywhere in their company that could identify a bolt from a slide. It's deliberately written to trap you, and now, extort you for $2,500.
> (f) the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory
It's not as if they're looking at your HN posts for violations, only payment transactions.